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

First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 85 posts

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#11

Post by [deleted] »

akuzi wrote: post #7
flocial wrote: post #3

Philosophy certainly got left behind as science marched into the forefront. We certainly don't live in a age when one could be a world class mathematician, physicist, and philosopher at the same time. Who is the greatest contemporary philosopher that comes to mind? I find it ironic that this debate is taking place at UNLV because it sort of mirrors the way colleges push certain sports. Likewise with scholarship it's…

> Who is the greatest contemporary philosopher that comes to mind? That is a question that is as difficult to answer as "Who is the greatest contemporary scientist?" Some candidates are Slavoj Žižek, Peter Singer, Annette Baier, Alastair Hannay, Daniel Dennett, John Searle, Simon Blackburn, Thomas Nagel, Leo Zaibert. The are also many famous philosophers are partly academics in specialist fields, eg. Richard Dawkins,…

[deleted]

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#12

Post by kirubakaran »

kmm wrote: post #6
F_J_H wrote: post #5

From the article: This is a key point to understand: philosophy, as a discipline, does not provide answers. Well, notwithstanding the fact that it certainly provides some answers, philosophy is more oriented towards learning how to come up with answers, and more importantly, learning how to recognize if the answer you’ve come up with is right or wrong. I have forgotten much of what my first year philosophy professor…

I don't understand, what question does philosophy conclusively answer?

"Do we need philosophers?"

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#13

Post by mikeryan »

kmm wrote: post #6
F_J_H wrote: post #5

From the article: This is a key point to understand: philosophy, as a discipline, does not provide answers. Well, notwithstanding the fact that it certainly provides some answers, philosophy is more oriented towards learning how to come up with answers, and more importantly, learning how to recognize if the answer you’ve come up with is right or wrong. I have forgotten much of what my first year philosophy professor…

I don't understand, what question does philosophy conclusively answer?

Philosophy doesn't answer the question, it teaches you which questions to ask.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#14

Post by yummyfajitas »

The author makes an unjustified claim: I don't know what the tariff for higher education at UNLV is nowadays, but you can be damn sure that every $50,000-a-year Philosophy major at Harvard is subsidizing a hell of a lot of electron microscopes for the glamorous—and much less profitable—Molecular Biology majors.

This is nonsense. The materials scientist who bought a $1M electron microscope received a grant for roughly $1.8M. The university took $800K or so as "overhead".

I wish more people were aware of what congress is really funding when they claim to give money to science.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#15

Post by _delirium »

flocial wrote: post #3

Philosophy certainly got left behind as science marched into the forefront. We certainly don't live in a age when one could be a world class mathematician, physicist, and philosopher at the same time. Who is the greatest contemporary philosopher that comes to mind? I find it ironic that this debate is taking place at UNLV because it sort of mirrors the way colleges push certain sports. Likewise with scholarship it's…

It does seem to be relatively popular for scientists to philosophize towards the end of their careers, though the quality is mixed. Maybe it would be better if there were more people familiar with multiple fields. For example, Stephen Hawking's latest book is in part theoretical physics, but in part metaphysics, proposing a new position of "model-dependent realism". That part might've been improved by better understanding the existing realist and non-realist positions and the problems they've encountered. Of course, some existing metaphysics might be improved by better understanding theoretical physics, so it's not really a one-way street.

But the approach of trying to pretend that that's not philosophy and therefore you don't have to engage with philosophy seems odder; it's difficult for me to see how proposing a metaphysical interpretation of a physics theory is not philosophy.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#16

Post by paganel »

akuzi wrote: post #7
flocial wrote: post #3

Philosophy certainly got left behind as science marched into the forefront. We certainly don't live in a age when one could be a world class mathematician, physicist, and philosopher at the same time. Who is the greatest contemporary philosopher that comes to mind? I find it ironic that this debate is taking place at UNLV because it sort of mirrors the way colleges push certain sports. Likewise with scholarship it's…

> Who is the greatest contemporary philosopher that comes to mind? That is a question that is as difficult to answer as "Who is the greatest contemporary scientist?" Some candidates are Slavoj Žižek, Peter Singer, Annette Baier, Alastair Hannay, Daniel Dennett, John Searle, Simon Blackburn, Thomas Nagel, Leo Zaibert. The are also many famous philosophers are partly academics in specialist fields, eg. Richard Dawkins,…

> Who is the greatest contemporary philosopher that comes to mind?

In fact, this is not a relevant question, it's the same like we'd be asking "who's the tallest philosopher?" or "who's the most handsome?". Heraclitus or Epicurus or Thomas Aquinas are as relevant to us, people of this day and age, as are the philosophers that by chance happen to live in the same time with us. I don't know who said it first (Hegel, I think), but I think that the history of philosophy is the same thing as philosophy itself, there's no linear progress from the pre-Socratics to the post-Marxists.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#17

Post by jackfoxy »

tel wrote: post #9
F_J_H wrote: post #5

From the article: This is a key point to understand: philosophy, as a discipline, does not provide answers. Well, notwithstanding the fact that it certainly provides some answers, philosophy is more oriented towards learning how to come up with answers, and more importantly, learning how to recognize if the answer you’ve come up with is right or wrong. I have forgotten much of what my first year philosophy professor…

I don't mean to flame, but in the light and sense of that quotation, weren't controls invented by scientists and refined by statisticians both concerned with effective experimental design? There weren't philosophers involved until way later. I find there's some important common ground between science and epistemology that can be talked about, though practicing scientists, in practice, never need to tread there.

One can argue philosophers, or a philosopher, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon, developed the scientific method. Bacon and Galileo were contemporaries. I don’t know if either influenced the other at all. Maybe they each independently discovered modern science.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#18

Post by joeyespo »

F_J_H wrote: post #5

From the article: This is a key point to understand: philosophy, as a discipline, does not provide answers. Well, notwithstanding the fact that it certainly provides some answers, philosophy is more oriented towards learning how to come up with answers, and more importantly, learning how to recognize if the answer you’ve come up with is right or wrong. I have forgotten much of what my first year philosophy professor…

Wow, very well said. Really liked Dr. Peacock's story. I have to ask though, in his account and to further prove the reason for questioning, did the vascular reconstructions actually end poorly or was it a success?

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#19

Post by dmfdmf »

I fully support shutting down the philosophy departments from Harvard and Yale on down. Not because philosophy is useless, pointless and impractical but because today what they teach is useless, pointless and impractical, not to mention dangerous. Everyone has and needs a philosophy -- an integrated view of the nature of reality, of truth and the basis for good and evil and the essence of being human. I strongly urge folks to read "Philosophy, Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand in which she makes the case, not for her philosophy of Objectivism, but of the importance and need for philosophy by all.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#20

Post by _pcpe »

IMO philosophy can't be learned/taught by the way we do with other subjects in school. Basically, philosophy answers to your questions, but only if you are searching the answer. But in most of the cases, peoples are searching reasons and logic behind a question, which philosophy doesn't provide. Here, I am talking about the eastern philosophy, which is entirely different than the western which I am totally unknown from. Philosophy can provide you vision of life, or whatever we are upto.

P.S. Let's not kill the philosophers.

Note: I am planning to join philosophy classes in my master level, once I finish my bachelors. :)

Post reply on HN