Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#51

Post by ninguem2 »

barrkel wrote: post #3
amelius wrote: post #2

The problem with philosophy is that it seems to make progress only very slowly. As an outsider, it seems that their fundamental questions are still at the same level as those of Socrates and Plato. It would have been nice if this article had addressed this issue. For instance, by discussing what are the most important insights of the last decade.

Don't underestimate philosophy's power to change the world. Marx's critique of capitalism had a dramatic effect, for example.

Much as Marx, whose contributions are controversial, the work of Peter Singer has also (to a lesser extent) changed the world.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#52

Post by hueving »

barrkel wrote: post #30
javert wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marx is a good example of why philosophy can be very dangerous. Marx's ideas have literally caused the deaths of millions in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, and probably others. Besides keeping people desperately impoverished in places like Venezuela. I'm not saying we sholdn't do philosophy because it can be dangerous. Philosophy can also be very good. In fact, we need the good…

Have you read Marx?

What does that have to do with the impact of Marx's philosophy?

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#53

Post by [deleted] »

javert wrote: post #16
sktrdie wrote: post #14

I feel differently from most people in this thread. Academia is not industry, and is not really driven by a capitalist market. You can debate that philosophy, and many other theoretical fields, have very little value in the market, and perhaps they do. But in reality, the richest countries are the ones that have strong research curriculums, with people studying things that are not immediately beneficial or even usefu…

Having a lot of professors living on the public dime and not contributing anything back is the effect of a rich (and decadent) society, not the cause .

[deleted]

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#54

Post by taylorscollon »

illivah wrote: post #41
DenisM wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does X lead to Y? Statistics today can answer the question of causality in many cases, especially the controlled studies, and that use to be the domain of philosophy.

were statistics and controlled studies discovered in the domain of philosophy? Or were those discovered by mathemeticians, which simply replaced philosophy.

This is a false dichotomy. Frege was a mathematician and wrote philosophy attempting to explain what a number was. Questions about which domain this effort ought to be bucketed in don't have an answer.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#55

Post by taylorscollon »

hueving wrote: post #50
taylorscollon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aristotle gave us logic, which is the basis for rational inquiry in all fields. Also an important contribution.

Because people couldn't think before Aristotle? Formalizing something is very different than 'giving it to humanity'.

Gravity exerted force before Newton formalized its effect. I think Newton's contribution was still valuable.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#56

Post by copsarebastards »

hyperpape wrote: post #17
copsarebastards wrote: post #11

Philosophy has become disconnected with real-life concerns. Philosophers operate in a void, working on problems without context. Attempts to connect this work with real-life concerns usually involve taking an idea developed without context and trying to apply it to a field (computer ethics, philosophy of scientific methods, etc.). This works poorly because the philosopher doesn't understand the field. A computer scie…

How much actual philosophy of science written since 1970 have you read? Right now, a constant conflict is that (many) non-philosophers of science think philosophy of science has gotten too empirical and too focused on particular scientific issues, to the detriment of philosophy (I don't believe this, but it shows how out of touch you are). Grad students in Phil Sci are expected to do graduate coursework in the scient…

How much of the philosophy of science written since 1970 was written by philosophers in the abstract, and how much of it was written by scientists? Just look at the "philosophers" mentioned on downthread from here; Carlo Rovelli: theoretical physicist, Noam Chomsky: linguist and cognitive scientist, Imre Lakatos: mathematician. All these people were formally trained in a more specialized field and later went into philosophy. This supports my point: a person who knows a specialized field is far more qualified to innovate in philosophy than someone who is philosophizing in a void and trying to apply it ex post facto.

I perhaps should have worded my post differently to clarify that my post is a criticism of philosophers (academics specializing in philosophy), not philosophy as it is more broadly practiced.

> Right now, a constant conflict is that (many) non-philosophers of science think philosophy of science has gotten too empirical and too focused on particular scientific issues, to the detriment of philosophy

I know, and that's exactly why I'm disagreeing with these people. As far as I'm concerned, philosophy that hasn't specialized in this way is mostly useless.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#57

Post by hyperpape »

javert wrote: post #19
Symmetry wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose Marx is a good example of why philosophy can be more useful than it looks. Much as in AI, whenever a philosopher ends up making an important contribution it starts a new type of academic research (political economy in Marx's case) and is no longer considered to be philosophy.

Marx is a good example of why philosophy can be very dangerous. Marx's ideas have literally caused the deaths of millions in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, and probably others. Besides keeping people desperately impoverished in places like Venezuela. I'm not saying we sholdn't do philosophy because it can be dangerous. Philosophy can also be very good. In fact, we need the good…

If Marx's theories are philosophical and dangerous, then any refutation of Marx's theories is also philosophical and valuable. The only question then is whether we should try and find people who study those questions and how we should study them.

I'm uncomfortable attributing Marx to philosophy entirely...like many historical figures it seems like he's only a partial fit. Just pointing out where your reasons leads.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#58

Post by [deleted] »

javert wrote: post #19
Symmetry wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose Marx is a good example of why philosophy can be more useful than it looks. Much as in AI, whenever a philosopher ends up making an important contribution it starts a new type of academic research (political economy in Marx's case) and is no longer considered to be philosophy.

Marx is a good example of why philosophy can be very dangerous. Marx's ideas have literally caused the deaths of millions in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, and probably others. Besides keeping people desperately impoverished in places like Venezuela. I'm not saying we sholdn't do philosophy because it can be dangerous. Philosophy can also be very good. In fact, we need the good…

[deleted]

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#59

Post by andreasvc »

ahallock wrote: post #8

I would love to force people to pay for things I love to do. There's nothing wrong with teaching philosophy, but stealing money to do so is wrong and lazy. What if I'd rather my money go toward cancer research? This guy would deny me that opportunity. He's saying his preferences are more important than mine. There are plenty of ways to make money teaching philosophy: donations (see FDR on Youtube as an example), book…

> see FDR on Youtube as an example

Can you be more specific? Searching gives a bunch of documentaries about FDR the president, don't know if that's what you mean.

Re: What Is the Public Value of Philosophy?

#60

Post by javert »

hueving wrote: post #52
barrkel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read Marx?

What does that have to do with the impact of Marx's philosophy?

He wants to defend Marx but there is no defense, so he does something to attack me instead. It's a classic disinformation tactic.

I don't know that for certain, maybe he's just actually curious, that's why I just answered his question instead of saying this to him.

Post reply on HN