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

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#31

Post by jackwagon »

Hisoka wrote: post #2

Philosophy, as it's taught in universities is not practical. But it doesn't have to be the case. Rather than aim for the abstract ideas such as Descartes, we should aim to teach things that relieve suffering in our daily lives, such as emotional mastery, and mental discipline. We should be answering the question: How best to live life in a world where luck, uncontrolled circumstances, unfairness and disappointments a…

"Philosophy, as it's taught in universities is not practical." There is plenty of practical philosophy. A healthy dose of theory of computation, or possibly business ethics, would have immediate utility for a lot of people here.

"Rather than aim for the abstract ideas such as Descartes" We study the ideas from people such as Descartes to analyze their methods. Btw, he had many early-scientific writings.

"we should aim to teach things that relieve suffering in our daily lives, such as emotional mastery, and mental discipline" no, maybe, yes.

... etc

"There are a lot of people with psychological problems in this world." Now you're just getting batshit.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#32

Post by pjscott »

mikeryan wrote: post #13
kmm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Question: "Which questions should we ask?"

Does philosophy answer this question? Or perhaps questions of the form "What questions should we ask in circumstances [FILL IN THE BLANK]?"

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#33

Post by mchusma »

I always have problems with discussions like this. The article starts: "Apparently the state's current fiscal crisis has inspired the university to consider eliminating the entire department and firing all of its members."

My answer to things like this is always the same. I would simply say privatize education, an let non profits and individuals pay for what they think is worth funds. Then you don't have to conflate the issue of the usefulness of philosophy with issues of taking the people's money to pay for people to learn philosophy. I think the philosophers might agree w me.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#35

Post by brianleb »

The snide commentary in this article undermines his arguments. Given how much of an expert he seems to consider himself, I would have expected him to know this. Looking down on others doesn't position you as their superior.

Examples: "If anyone should realize that, an epistemologist should. If Professor Jones does not, perhaps he doesn't deserve to teach philosophy."

"I shudder to think what a sensitive and intelligent criminologist, jurist, or physicist would take away from a rigorous course in the foundations of knowledge. If he or she has half a brain, they would be rendered permanently uncertain about the validity of their own day-to-day work."

"Perhaps you, Dear Reader—like me—are surprised to learn that a hotbed of scholarly inquiry like UNLV actually has a philosophy department in the first place. But, putting aside any special needs UNLV might have concerning the ontology or metaphysics of college basketball, or the ethical justification for bribery of student athletes, I suppose it makes sense, if only for the sake of curricular completeness."

"But last time I checked, the discipline of philosophy has not said, "Look, Kant got the categorical imperative pretty much right, so let's all just move on, shall we?" in the same way physicists have done with Newton and Einstein."

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#36

Post by JonnieCache »

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.

Science evolved directly out of philosophy. Before science was called science, it was referred to as "natural philosophy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Principia Mathematica's full title is Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#37

Post by vecter »

jchrisa wrote: post #23

I studied Philosophy at Reed College. The department there is biased toward the analytic side, which means I mostly studied set and number theory, reference and meaning of language, and other somewhat technical questions. I'm absolutely certain this was better preparation for my current career (writing Erlang and making dorky music videos about CouchDB) than anything I could have learned in a CS program. Maybe other…

That's interesting. Could you elaborate on why you think analytic philosophy better prepared you for a career as an Erlang programmer than a computer science degree?

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#38

Post by geoka9 »

jackwagon wrote: post #31
Hisoka wrote: post #2

Philosophy, as it's taught in universities is not practical. But it doesn't have to be the case. Rather than aim for the abstract ideas such as Descartes, we should aim to teach things that relieve suffering in our daily lives, such as emotional mastery, and mental discipline. We should be answering the question: How best to live life in a world where luck, uncontrolled circumstances, unfairness and disappointments a…

"Philosophy, as it's taught in universities is not practical." There is plenty of practical philosophy. A healthy dose of theory of computation, or possibly business ethics, would have immediate utility for a lot of people here. "Rather than aim for the abstract ideas such as Descartes" We study the ideas from people such as Descartes to analyze their methods. Btw, he had many early-scientific writings. "we should ai…

> There is plenty of practical philosophy. A healthy dose of theory of computation..

Is theory of computation actually philosophy? Last time I checked it was a CS discipline.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#39

Post by ristretto »

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 am often disapponted by the inadequacy of modern philosophy of mind to follow recent advances in neuroscience and the brain sciences in general. Many of them have inadequate knowledge of the fields or outright dismiss verified results in order to advance obscure entities such as "qualia", or to promote a dualistic view of the world. Some of them also like to use quantum mechanics as "correlates of consciousness", just because quantum mechanics is hard to understand, or they propose that "consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe". Such things remind more of new-age mumbo-jumbo rather than serious thinking. Generally, their role in the field has not been very constructive, and most neuroscientists quietly ignore them taking a physicalist approach.

Re: First, Let's Shoot All the Philosophers

#40

Post by yters »

kstenerud wrote: post #4

The author begins by accurately portraying the general ignorance of the study of philosophy, and how this attitude greatly diminishes the perceived value of such studies. I was in agreement until the post took a sharp turn into veiled conspiracies, where those in authority are seemingly fully aware of how incompetent or corrupt authority can be undermined by questions, and actively seek to stamp out independent thoug…

In most dictatorships the intellectuals are all killed because they undermine the status quo.
Post reply on HN