Live data from Hacker News

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

3-16am.co.uk

51–60 of 154 posts

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

#51
post #6

Philosophy is arguably the most important thing in my life. I'd like to live a morally good life, and figuring out what makes such a life is a great journey. Thanks to my pursuit, I now give at least 10% of my income to the most cost-effective charities I can find (see GiveWell). Thousands of people do the same: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/ Many philosophers are working on society's most pressing issues (see the…

I've found that the effective altruist community (and other "neo-rationalist"-adjacent communities) can be very arrogant about ethical philosophy. Namely, they don't critically engage with alternatives to their ethical theory.

That's a shame. I hope they get better at empathy and engaging with alternative points of view.

I wonder if part of it is youth. I am now 35 and have a more nuanced point of view on things (at least I try). When I was 25, I wasn't as good at it, and I was especially less experienced at communicating about it.

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

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty complex topic, but I'll go back to my question that I posed: if your behaviors indicate one thing, but your spoken word indicates another, what does that mean? Is is possible that modern secular culture is simply Christianity-as-act, but with the explicit verbal affirmation of belief removed? Religions change just as much as cultures do, and I would say that modern culture is quite obsessed with "ver…

I think there is a difference between having cultural values and believing in a deity. We can expand the definition of religion to include those sets of cultural values, but then I worry that: a. the word religion loses meaning b. someone who was raised in the Islamic world and comes to the States and converts to Judaism can never stop being a Muslim? Even if they weren't one to start with? That seems absurd to me.

I'd suggest you look at Bellah's Civil Religion in America (1967), which suggests that certain ritual practices, e.g. rising for the national anthem before a sporting event, are religious in nature.

And not that it's particularly definitive, but I'd note that cult and culture share the same Latin etymology.

"Just as Thanksgiving Day, which incidentally was securely institutionalized as an annual national holiday only under the presidency of Lincoln, serves to integrate the family into the civil religion, so Memorial Day has acted to integrate the local community into the national cult. Together with the less overtly religious Fourth of July and the more minor celebrations of Veterans Day and the birthdays of Washington and Lincoln, these two holidays provide an annual ritual calendar for the civil religion. The public school system serves as a particularly important context for the cultic celebration of the civil rituals."

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

#53
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the link, he's clearly attacking the study of philosophy as a whole.

Why did you pick out that quote if it misrepresents the linked article?

I don't think it misrepresents it at all. I wasn't reading "natural world" as being strictly a scientific thing.

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

#55
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

My personal, perhaps cynical perspective: religious people expanding definition of "religion" into meaninglessness.

In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices.

It is NOT a synonym for all belief, philosophy, ethical framework, world paradigms, etc. If it does become a synonym, then we'll simply need a NEW word to distinguish between "belief in supernatural entity" vs "no belief in a supernatural entity"

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

#56

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…

Philosophy will cease to be relevant when thinking ceases to be relevant. I would cast suspicion on the intentions of anyone who wants people to stop reasoning and questioning.

From the way our modern society is structured, sometimes it seems that consumption is the most important activity for the masses, not sober thinking and reflection. If that is so, then philosophy really is something that exists for that relatively small proportion of society needed to keep science and technology going enough to sustain consumerism.

In the past, it might have been suggested that philosophy should be made available to the consuming masses because they would be somehow liberated through it and made masters of their own destiny or whatever. Yet as time goes by, I’m less confident that the masses even want that purported liberation, at least not if it threatens consumption. Remember how throughout the 20th century, the average man rolled his eyes at those socialist-party members who kept banging on about the need to rise up against the system? Well, those encouraging thinking and reflection can expect the exact same response.

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

#57
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the observation clearly placed a great weight on Fisher, Rest In Peace. Capitalist Realism is short, but very heavy. I highly recommend it to the HN community.

I just came across Mark Fisher this past year - his ideas are interesting. He reminds me of David Foster Wallace for some odd reason. Here's a few of my favorite excerpts from Fisher's Ghosts of My Life: Writings on Depression, Hauntology and Lost Futures:

> Producing the new depends upon certain kinds of withdrawal — from, for instance, sociality as much as from pre-existing cultural forms — but the currently dominant form of socially networked cyberspace, with its endless opportunities for micro-contact and its deluge of YouTube links, has made withdrawal more difficult than ever before. Or, as Simon Reynolds so pithily put it, in recent years, everyday life has sped up, but culture has slowed down.

> The most productive way of reading the ‘personal is political’ is to interpret it as saying: the personal is impersonal. It’s miserable for anyone at all to be themselves (still more, to be forced to sell themselves). Culture, and the analysis of culture, is valuable insofar as it allows an escape from ourselves.

> Joy Division always sounded as if they had experienced one too many of those desolating voidings, so that they could no longer be lured back onto the merry-go-round. They knew that satiation wasn’t succeeded by tristesse, it was itself, immediately, tristesse. Satiation is the point at which you must face the existential revelation that you didn’t want really want what you seemed so desperate to have, that your most urgent desires are only a filthy vitalist trick to keep the show on the road.

> To leaf through other people’s family photos, to see moments that were of intense emotional significance for them but which mean nothing to you, is, necessarily, to reflect on the times of high drama in your life, and to achieve a kind of distance that is at once dispassionate and powerfully affecting. That is why the - beautifully, painfully - dilated moment in Tarkovsky’s Stalker where the camera lingers over talismanic objects that were once saturated with meaning, but are now saturated only with water is for me the most moving scene in cinema. It is as if we are seeing the urgencies of our lives through the eyes of an Alien-God. Otto claims that the sense of the numinous is associated with feelings of our own fundamental worthlessness, experience with a ‘piercing acuteness [and] accompanied by the most uncompromissing judgement of self-depreciation’. But, contrary to today’s ego psychology, which hectors us into reinforcing our sense of self (all the better to ‘sell ourselves’), the awareness of our own Nothingness is of course a pre-requisite for a feeling of grace. There is a melancholy dimension to this grace precisely because it involves a radical distanciation from what is ordinarily most important to us.

> [A]s Rudolf Otto establishes in The Idea of the Holy, encounters with angels are as disturbing, traumatic and overwhelming as encounters with demons. After all, what could be more shattering, unassimilable and incomprehensible in our hyper-stressed, constantly disappointing and overstimulated lives, than the sensation of calm joy? Otto, a conservative Christian, argued that all religious experience has its roots in what is initially misrecognized as ‘daemonic dread’; he saw encounters with ghosts, similarly, as a perverted version of what the Christian person would experience religiously.

> Capital can never openly admit that it is a system based on inhuman rapacity; the Terminator can never remove its human mask.

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

#58
post #37

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

Animals behave ethically/morally and they have no religion.

It's possible that ethics were first written within a theistic context but that has no bearing on how they were created.

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

#59

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.

Lots of people enjoy "philosophical" discussions and certainly derive value from them. What they might not like is the "philosophy" that's continually throwing around author names, complicated words, and kinda leaves the average person feeling stupid talking around "proper philosophers". If you want to educate people, start with the layman explanations, and only at the end annotate the complicated words. It's not like people don't understand the general concept of things like "utilitarianism", it's simply that they don't use that word in their day to day, so they don't associate the concept to the word.

As to your other comment, well, that included a rather oversimplified example of utilitarianism, which many utilitarians will not even share. It's very easy to make naive utilitarian calculations, and in many cases there's too much uncertainty to even make calculations. You can only say that naive utilitarianism is easier than deontology. No offense intended, but maybe some people were downvoting you for this.

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

#60

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…

Being an atheist doesn’t imply belief in the Big Bang, evolutionism or any way of life.

One could be an atheist convinced that dinosaurs are a fabrication, nothing more than funny looking rocks some weird junkie decided to give some absurd meaning to, that the universe has always been the way it is, that the Romans never existed, and that we should all live in the mountains, only eating whatever we find in some specific dark caves filled with the appropriately colored glowing mushrooms.

All for no other reason than that it makes them feel good.

Post reply on HN