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

Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

3-16am.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 154 posts

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#101

Post by errantmind »

crazygringo wrote: post #90
ErikAugust wrote: post #32

“The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato” - Alfred North Whitehead

Which has always felt like such an unusual characterization. I've read a ton of philosophy papers and books. Only rarely does one come across a reference to Plato in modern-day writing and theorizing. Whereas Aristotle crops up constantly. Plato was the first well-known philosopher, but honestly, none of his ideas are particularly relevant today. Whereas Aristotle really was so prolific and practical that I'd argue t…

Whitehead was a proponent of process philosophy, a philosophy of 'becoming' as contrasted with Plato's philosophy of 'being'. This division can be traced back further to pre-socratic philosophy, i.e. Parmenides (being) and Heraclitus (becoming). Aristotle continued firmly on the same tract as Parmenides and Plato in terms of having a philosophical focus on being, and today we take this type of thinking for granted as it has permeated nearly all of western philosophy and society. Aristotle may have been more prolific but I suspect the quote is referencing this division more than anything else.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

keiferski wrote: post #21
randlet wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still not clear to me how that implies I have a religion. Being influenced, consciously or subconsciously does not mean I have a religion, but maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

Well, it basically comes down to how you are defining religion. The idea being that defining it as inherently supernatural is impossible and simply a linguistic reshuffling, when it's really more like "you've simply started calling your belief system something else, but it's actually still just Christian." Keep in mind here that Christianity, like all religions, is a really big tent. Put in other terms, the Western w…

> Put in other terms, the Western world in 2020 likes to act as if it reinvented itself afresh in the 1700-1800-1900s, but in reality, everything about "secular" knowledge has been formed in thousands of years of Christian culture

Both sides of that claim are fantastically false. First, while most describe the Enlightenment as novel, almost noone describes it arising ex nihilo rather than as a product of preexisting social forces, both building on and reacting against things present in its immediate context.

Second, while obviously it arose in a largely Christian context, there were significant non-Christian influences, and particularly the repopularization of pre-Christian influence (in part from interaction with contemporary non-Christian cultures) played a significant role in the Renaissance which itself set the stage for the Enlightenment.

> For example, the idea of universal human worth, human rights, and subsequently democracy (in the sense of every human being, not the Ancient Greek kind), is absolutely rooted in a Christian context.

Much of our idea of human rights is a reaction against the practices on all sides of the divides within Western Christendom.

> Had a different society had the industrial revolution first, things might be very different.

Sure, social evolution is path dependent. And if we adopted a cladistic taxonomy of belief systems, those stemming from the Enlightenment might usefully described as being subsets of "Christianity" because of their origin. But while cladistic taxonomy makes some sense for biological life, it really doesn't make sense for social movements.

> Or to ask a different question: if your values and actions indicate you as a group of X, but you vehemently deny (only with words) being a member of X, what does that mean?

It probably means that you and the people who think your "values and actions" make you part of X have radically different definitions of "X", and are essentially speaking different languages on that point.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

shoreofwonder wrote: post #15
randlet wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who would deny having a religion, can you clarify what you mean by that?

Every decision you make is made under a great deal of uncertainty. A person typically holds overarching beliefs that govern those decisions. For example, how much value do you put into close relationships versus distant ones? Is charity worthwhile if it helps someone who can't help you back? Maybe someone who doesn't even know you?

> Every decision you make is made under a great deal of uncertainty. A person typically holds overarching beliefs that govern those decisions.

Having beliefs is not the same as having religion.

Even having theistic beliefs isn't the same as having religion.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#104

Post by Retric »

svieira wrote: post #98
FabHK wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect, of being and essence, of meaning and purpose. After all, the atheist says "there is no need for another uncaused cause because ..." - that "because" serves the purpose of religion. I would argue that one cannot be an atheist without that "because". An agnostic can act in the fashion of an…

You’re assuming people must hold beliefs based on rational evidence when religions aren’t based on rationality. Thus your argument is inherently flawed. An atheist with atheist parents hardly needs to deeply consider the matter.

Not believing in a God(s) is no different than not believing in perfectly square pigs. It’s people that have a specific religious belief that put much importance on the subject.

PS: Saying the universe or your life has no purpose is hardly a cause do nothing any more than it’s a cause to build churches.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#105

Post by dragonwriter »

thatcat wrote: post #9
keiferski wrote: post #2

Philosophy hasn’t stopped being relevant, if anything, it’s even more relevant today in a hyper-globalized world. What’s changed is that academics have become over-specialized, to the point where many outright deny the usefulness of entire academic fields. Scientists like Einstein or Humboldt were well versed in philosophy and religion, whereas today the “public intellectuals” often say philosophy is outdated or usel…

Mark Fisher describes the same thing, as not "the end of history" but the cancellation of the future based on observations that the Neoliberal political system has continued well past its serviceable life and that there seems to be nothing coming to replace it.

> the Neoliberal political system has continued well past its serviceable life

Neoliberalism isn't a political system, but an economic ideology.

Neoliberalism, insofar as it is a distint viewpoint within the derivatives of classical liberalism, is a fairly recent reaction to post-classical-liberal economic ideologies, primarily (but not exclusively) those of the Left.

The neoliberal consensus beginning to break down is even more recent, and, while its obviously unclear what will replace it (or if neoliberalism will be resurgent), I don't see how that would be the "cancellation of the future", only (potentially, assuming neoliberalism is not resurgent and finally triumphant) the end of the idea that neoliberalism itself was, economically, the end of history.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#106

Post by leftyted »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #3
keiferski wrote: post #2

Philosophy hasn’t stopped being relevant, if anything, it’s even more relevant today in a hyper-globalized world. What’s changed is that academics have become over-specialized, to the point where many outright deny the usefulness of entire academic fields. Scientists like Einstein or Humboldt were well versed in philosophy and religion, whereas today the “public intellectuals” often say philosophy is outdated or usel…

Agreed. Everyone already has a philosophy (and a religion), though many people don't know it, and some would deny it. The question isn't whether to have a philosophy but which philosophy to have. EDIT: since some have asked what I meant by "everyone already has...a religion," I meant that even something like atheism is a religion. It has a story of the origin of the universe, various accounts for why and how you shou…

I understand what you're saying but I disagree: atheism is not a religion. The verb "is" does not mean "fulfills the same function as". Just because atheists have to answer the same questions as theists does not make atheism a religion.

If you want a word to describe what atheism and religion have in common, I'd go with "spirituality". Not in the sense of "burning incense" or "believing in ghosts" but rather in the sense of holding beliefs that are not rational and deciding to care about the world and about humanity in particular.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#107

Post by errantmind »

trhway wrote: post #69
peterwwillis wrote: post #13

Meanwhile, you mention ethical philosophy in the context of a mail security extension and get downvoted to hell. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25119305 Philosophy is doing a bad job of explaining its importance to the world. Philosophy nerds care about it, but everyone else thinks it's stupid.

> everyone else thinks it's stupid. As far as i see the philosophy fails to correctly abstract and incorporate modern advances in scientific knowledge and technological development. While such abstraction and incorporation naturally would take time and make philosophy lagging behind, the majority of philosophy don't even bother to do it and dismisses the reality outright, a very stupid thing to do. The philosophy's r…

How would you discuss and constructively criticize the scientific method itself without philosophy? Philosophy is a superset of science and while it is less constrained overall, I wouldn't say it is useless.

You say philosophy has a failure to provide a "well build abstraction as well as exploration guidance" but how would that work? Philosophy is a large subject area, but I'll take the liberty to say it isn't required to be straight forward with concrete answers, more so to provoke thinking about what makes something straight forward and concrete.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#108

Post by dragonwriter »

svieira wrote: post #98
FabHK wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect, of being and essence, of meaning and purpose. After all, the atheist says "there is no need for another uncaused cause because ..." - that "because" serves the purpose of religion. I would argue that one cannot be an atheist without that "because". An agnostic can act in the fashion of an…

> Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect

No, it may just be grounded in an epistemological approach in which entities which are not necessary to explain observations are presumed not to exist.

> To put it another way, one cannot be an atheist without a religion - one can only be agnostic.

Many self-described atheists reject the atheist/agnostic distinction as meaningless, viewing the absence of belief as equivalent to unbelief in their epistemology.

> To put it a third way, Cicero says "religion consists in offering service and ceremonial rites to a superior nature that men call divine." The atheist says "there is none to serve" - but that is patently untrue, for in that case there would be no end to strive after and all atheists would perish by inaction.

That is fantastic illogic. The absence of a "superior nature" to which one might have a reason to offer "service and ceremonial rites" does not deny that there are goals that one might strive for. Maximizing one's own experienced utility, for instance, requires no assumption of a "superior nature", nor even a rejection of solipsism, but still provides an end to strive after and motivate action.

> Therefore, all atheists have chosen to serve some superior nature, either themselves

Serving yourself is not serving a "superior nature", since "superior" is meaningful only in comparison to something else, and in Cicero's statement it is clearly in comparison to the self.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#109

Post by philippoi »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #3
keiferski wrote: post #2

Philosophy hasn’t stopped being relevant, if anything, it’s even more relevant today in a hyper-globalized world. What’s changed is that academics have become over-specialized, to the point where many outright deny the usefulness of entire academic fields. Scientists like Einstein or Humboldt were well versed in philosophy and religion, whereas today the “public intellectuals” often say philosophy is outdated or usel…

Agreed. Everyone already has a philosophy (and a religion), though many people don't know it, and some would deny it. The question isn't whether to have a philosophy but which philosophy to have. EDIT: since some have asked what I meant by "everyone already has...a religion," I meant that even something like atheism is a religion. It has a story of the origin of the universe, various accounts for why and how you shou…

I've been thinking about this issue of unknown, unacknowledged, or perhaps subconscious religion a lot lately. I grew up religious but am now an atheist, and though I haven't sought to replace it component-wise, I've been observing de facto beliefs in myself and others that wouldn't normally be recognized as such because they aren't packaged as a lot. What makes me note similarities between acknowledged religious beliefs and unacknowledged ones is their function. If you look at the desired effects, they have the same aim: guidance in making decisions, association with a group sharing a particular view, value judgments both aesthetic and moral. The religions we created are a reflection of our psychology and physiology, and often the tensions between those two. It seems to me at least that a name brand religion often fills a life module that's required for a human to operate. The fact that it might be unlabeled might make it more difficult to identify, but it doesn't nullify its existence.

Re: Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away

#110

Post by dragonwriter »

rrsmtz wrote: post #37
mannykannot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secular humanisn owes a lot to ethical principles developed in a religious context, but it does not follow that by adopting the ethics, one is also adopting the religion. Any attempt to push that proposition consistently is likely to devalue the overtly theistic aspects of the religion in question.

> it does not follow that by adopting the ethics, one is also adopting the religion Those ethics were created from within a theistic worldview, they weren't born from reason. Adopting the ethics of a religious culture while denying the underlying assumptions is pretty unreasonable.

> Those ethics were created from within a theistic worldview, they weren't born from reason.

In many case, they were both; the existence of a theistic worldview does not prevent the application of reason.

> Adopting the ethics of a religious culture while denying the underlying assumptions is pretty unreasonable.

But we do adopt the relevant foundational assumptions, just not the irrelevant ones, where the conclusions are shared.

Of course, the conclusions are often different, because post-Enlightenment society often rejects substantive, morally significant elements of its precursors (in some cases, pre-existing religions have adapted to this and adopted, in whole or in part, Enlightenment values as well.)

Post reply on HN