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

Philosophy Needs a New Definition

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#31

Post by nanomoose »

folksinger wrote: post #29

Think of a triangle. At one point is "philosopher", at another "asshole", and the third "idiot". Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "idiot" to be "innocent love". Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "asshole" to be "pure knowledge". The total idiot has all the love and none of the knowledge. The total asshole has all of the knowledge and none of the love. The total philosopher has all the love and al…

I like that. I've always thought of the left and the right of the political spectrum as the idiots and the arseholes.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#32

Post by forapurpose »

vinceguidry wrote: post #26

A good, if depressing, argument can be made for defining philosophy as "that which happens in academic philosophy departments." Ideas have a quorum of people that you have to convince in order to be taken seriously, when your thoughts aspire to the philosophical, then that quorum exists solely in the academy and related organizations grounded in the academy. Any attempts to get outside of this mean expanding the quor…

Similarly, we could say that science is 'whatever studies Nature publishes', but that doesn't tell us much and threatens to leave the mistaken impression that Nature is merely capricious and arbitrary.

While I agree with your conclusion, we shouldn't forget that philosophy and other marketplaces you mention have standards based mostly on what proved to be true in the past, what can withstand argument and criticism in the idea marketplace, and on a commitment to excellence and achievement.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#33

Post by forapurpose »

empath75 wrote: post #6
jseliger wrote: post #2

To quote AL Daily: Philosophy now comes to us in one form: the peer-reviewed article, published (preferably in English) in an academic journal. No wonder philosophy has become so irrelevant.

The incentives in academic philosophy aren't really around finding truth, but rather getting published so you can keep your tenure. There are a lot of academic philosophers that have crawled so far up their own asses they don't even know the way out any more. But they don't represent all of philosophy, even if they get a lot of attention. Philosophy broadly defined is as vital and important as ever, though. I can't i…

> There are a lot of academic philosophers that have crawled so far up their own asses they don't even know the way out any more

Which ones?

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#34

Post by vbuwivbiu »

folksinger wrote: post #29

Think of a triangle. At one point is "philosopher", at another "asshole", and the third "idiot". Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "idiot" to be "innocent love". Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "asshole" to be "pure knowledge". The total idiot has all the love and none of the knowledge. The total asshole has all of the knowledge and none of the love. The total philosopher has all the love and al…

are you suggesting the philosopher is at the apex ?

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#35

Post by cicero »

folksinger wrote: post #29

Think of a triangle. At one point is "philosopher", at another "asshole", and the third "idiot". Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "idiot" to be "innocent love". Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "asshole" to be "pure knowledge". The total idiot has all the love and none of the knowledge. The total asshole has all of the knowledge and none of the love. The total philosopher has all the love and al…

"...speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ..." Ephesians 4:15 (RSVCE)

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#36

Post by eesmith »

0xCMP wrote: post #4
eesmith wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the same article says: > To complicate matters, often fiction writers (think Dostoyevsky, Huxley, or Borges) turn out to be particularly insightful philosophers, and so do filmmakers — such as Bergman, Kurosawa, and Tarkovsky — who philosophize just as insightfully on screen. All these entanglements and contaminations mark philosophy profoundly — indeed, they make it what it is. These two quotes are compatibl…

The author makes the point that these are philosophers, but our current pure, strict definition of that makes them just writers and filmmakers. Like you said, more people have seen one of their films, or read one of their books, than read an academic philosophy paper

Well, yes. My complaint is really about the idea of "our current pure, strict definition". Who gets to make that definition, and when was it ever different?

When Randy Cohen ran "The Ethicist" column in the NYT, and a similar program for NPR ... didn't most non-academics consider it philosophy?

When people talk about "The Trolly Problem" ... isn't that also philosophy?

So it seems to me that many more people are engaged in philosophy - "not only our cognition, but also our imagination, emotions, artistic sensibility, religious impulses" - than the author acknowledges.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#37

Post by yomritoyj »

"myth, poetry, drama, mysticism, scientific thinking, political militancy, or social activism" are all alive and well. Whether we include them in 'philosophy' or not may be of importance for those seeking prestige or positions in these fields, but is a matter of little significance for the rest of us.

And there is also a need in this world for formalized thinking on fundamental questions. Not only has formal thinking often brought clarity and progress, formalism has a poetry of its own which poets know nothing about.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#38

Post by hammock »

folksinger wrote: post #29

Think of a triangle. At one point is "philosopher", at another "asshole", and the third "idiot". Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "idiot" to be "innocent love". Consider the edge between "philosopher" and "asshole" to be "pure knowledge". The total idiot has all the love and none of the knowledge. The total asshole has all of the knowledge and none of the love. The total philosopher has all the love and al…

That's a two-dimensional matrix, not a triangle. Love on one axis and knowledge on the other

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#39

Post by hammock »

jdtang13 wrote: post #8

From the headline, I thought that the article would be some materialist Sam Harris fanboy talking about how analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy and how science can tell us objective truths about morality. Count me surprised! This writer has great taste. Philosophy and poetry are closely related. Transmission of knowledge is very difficult. People don't learn well through textbooks and diagrams; they learn…

Well put. In this vein, for the economically inclined, I highly recommend "The Romantic Economist" by Richard Bronk. https://www.amazon.com/Romantic-Economist-Imagination-Econom...

>Since economies are dynamic processes driven by creativity, social norms, and emotions as well as rational calculation, why do economists largely study them using static equilibrium models and narrow rationalistic assumptions? Economic activity is as much a function of imagination and social sentiments as of the rational optimisation of given preferences and goods. In this book, Richard Bronk argues that economists can best model and explain these creative and social aspects of markets by using new structuring assumptions and metaphors derived from the poetry and philosophy of the Romantics. By bridging the divide between literature and science, and between Romanticism and narrow forms of Rationalism, economists can access grounding assumptions, models, and research methods suitable for comprehending the creativity and social dimensions of economic activity. This is a guide to how economists and other social scientists can broaden their analytical repertoire to encompass the vital role of sentiments, language, and imagination.

Re: Philosophy Needs a New Definition

#40

Post by fnordsensei »

At this stage in life (maybe not at the time), I relate to my own education in philosophy as "learning to think", or "learning to reason", perhaps.

You have to follow a train of thought through and address even the minutest details for logical consistency, or another person (playing the devil's advocate, most likely) will find the inconsistencies and use them to poke a hole in the entire argument. This skill is not limited to debate. Debate is just one way to exercise it.

The usefulness of being able to carry out long, cohesive trains of thought is so general and pervasive that it's hard to describe any one situation, on the lines of "a hammer is useful for getting nails into a board", that describes it rather than diminishes it.

Post reply on HN