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

Is Philosophy an Art?

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 149 posts

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#61

Post by neonological »

routerl wrote: post #52
neonological wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Yeah I can meta the entire universe together if I wanted to. What’s the set of all things that can be talked about? Metaphysics and the Milesian school of thought are both elements in that set. There’s no point in this categorization however compelling you find the a…

> you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? > Yeah I can meta the entire universe together Metaphysics is very specifically about the underlying assumptions of physics. It always has been, even though the meaning of the word physics has changed wildly ove…

> sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side?

Animism sits side by side with metaphysics under philosophy.

>...

When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn. You can even metameta. I’m saying the legitimacy of talking about metaphysics is different from the legitimacy of say metatoilets.

Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day. This isn’t history class that I’m talking about here. If some scientist is wrong about something, that hypothesis is discarded from science. Animism has not been discarded... it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science. This is the category error I’m talking about.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#62

Post by namero999 »

neonological wrote: post #50
namero999 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science and philosophy are complementary to each other, but it would be a mistake to take science as the ultimate arbiter of what reality is. That is not science business, that is exactly philosophy business. Science is the practice of finding theories which can predict the patterns of blinking lights and ticking sounds of our sensors and instruments. In other words, it describes the behavior of the universe, while b…

Science is not the ultimate arbiter. There is no arbiter, foundational science rests on axiomatic assumptions and even with these assumptions in place it is not possible to prove a any statement to be true within the framework of science. Disproof is even technically not possible due to limited accuracy of our observational tools. You have a limited fuzzy understanding of science and I believe it is interfering with…

The same can be said of your understanding of philosophy and the ranking of your comments is telling.

There is no category error. You are just simulacring one to put science on a higher pedestal because it is evident you have vested interest. If you'd actually analyze why you consider science superior to philosophy, you would be hard pressed not to notice that they are both endeavor of the human intellect that simply happen to use different axioms and validity constraints. It is just as "random", and as you mention in your very last comment, ultimately non falsifiable. How can there be a category error when they share such fundamental characteristics? The only thing that leaks out of your arguments is that you just "don't like" philosophy.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#64

Post by bobthechef »

qsort wrote: post #19
cardoni wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stating "there is no way to refute or evaluate philosophy" while then going on to do the same seems incongruent.

Language vs. meta-language. I completely subscribe to parent's point of view: because concepts expressed in natural language are so massively overloaded, it's very hard to make precise statements. When disciplines acquire their own method and formal language, they tend to splinter off philosophy. Think about mathematics, physics, biology, economics...

> Language vs. meta-language.

I do not understand what this is supposed to mean or demonstrate.

> because concepts expressed in natural language are so massively overloaded, it's very hard to make precise statements.

That's why philosophers clarify meanings and ask for clarification for terms when they think are vague. That something is "overloaded" (amphiboly) doesn't mean you can't determine which meaning is used or, right? When you read something, you're not grading papers. You're interpreting things in a sensible way.

> When disciplines acquire their own method and formal language, they tend to splinter off philosophy. Think about mathematics, physics, biology, economics...

Formalization isn't magic. To formalize something, you have to get to a place where you have a clear enough and correct enough understanding so that you can express it in that language. And in any case, philosophers do employ formalization when they think it useful. It isn't always. Frankly, even mathematicians, practitioners of the most formal of sciences, don't use formal methods to express their _reasoning_ in most cases.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#65

Post by Thursday24 »

neonological wrote: post #53
Thursday24 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider Newton. He pursued physical theories, alchemy and theological studies with similar amount scholarship and zest. His physical theories obtained popularity due to its utility. And his theological and alchemical studies didn't give the world any material benefits and so the world calls those areas of his output "random speculations". But at the core of all these three attempts is a probing, speculative mind. Th…

‘A probing speculative mind” is the rule for what goes into philosophy? I’m sure that the people who came up with a technical basis for creationism also were probing and quite speculative making creationism a philosophy. Some vague “ a probing speculative mind” is not a good definition for a field of study. It’s way to broad and lacks preciseness.

Philosophy is a PROCESS of enquiry (hopefully "skilled"). It is difficult to compress a long-running & haphazard process into precise definition. You can label the process, talk about various aspects of the process, share examples and so on, but it is perhaps not sensible to define it too precisely. Theories you get at the end of any process of enquiry, whether they are workable or not, are PRODUCTS. Products by their very nature will be well-defined or precise.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#66

Post by specialist »

harperlee wrote: post #58
specialist wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> philosophy of the art of words and ideas Nice. Art is short for artifact, meaning human created. So of course philosophy is an art. The "what is art" debate gets turgid when it drifts into "fine art" vs "pop art". Whatever. It's all art. Making distinctions is sophistry.

It is the converse: an artifact is made (factum) by art (arte).

Heh. Ya, that's better. Like saying universities (collections of scholars) produce scholarship. I love the idea of philosophers producing philosophy.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#67

Post by bobthechef »

Nonsense.

Sure, if you want to spite the bullshit artists in the field by calling what they're doing "performance art", that's fine. But if you're a real philosopher, then you are ultimately interested in the truth by definition, while recognizing that it isn't always easy to get to, that it might take a lot of effort to even put together a sensible response or claim in the first place, and even more time refining the position in an engagement with other philosophers. So in that sense, the philosophical disciplines are sciences, and in fact, the highest and most general sciences. No other science can answer metaphysical questions, for example. Sure, other sciences can inform the discussion, but they cannot replace the philosophical science that draws from them.

The article is behind a paywall, so I could not read beyond the first couple pages or so, but from the comments I sense that there is some strange conviction that philosophy is ultimately an obsolete kind of wankery that the empirical sciences have long since superseded. Of course, this is rather a sign of profound ignorance and philistinism rather than a statement about how things actually are.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#68

Post by neonological »

namero999 wrote: post #62
neonological wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is not the ultimate arbiter. There is no arbiter, foundational science rests on axiomatic assumptions and even with these assumptions in place it is not possible to prove a any statement to be true within the framework of science. Disproof is even technically not possible due to limited accuracy of our observational tools. You have a limited fuzzy understanding of science and I believe it is interfering with…

The same can be said of your understanding of philosophy and the ranking of your comments is telling. There is no category error. You are just simulacring one to put science on a higher pedestal because it is evident you have vested interest. If you'd actually analyze why you consider science superior to philosophy, you would be hard pressed not to notice that they are both endeavor of the human intellect that simply…

> How can there be a category error when they share such fundamental characteristics? The only thing that leaks out of your arguments is that you just "don't like" philosophy.

Because every possible thing you can think of as a statement in the universe is unfalsifiable. Every single religion, to theory, to poem uttered by a little kid. Yet although they share the same flaw, Not all of these things are worth studying nor are they worth placing in the same random category.

Only specific things line up with observation consistently according to our best available observations. Religion and ethics are not among these things. Logic and probability is. So why place these two things side by side and call it philosophy? It’s like randomly creating the philosophy of the paint on that wall and studying it as much as science. Both are completely arbitrary choices.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#69

Post by bobthechef »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #63

Classically, philosophy is not about establishing truth. It is about better living.

Not true. Classically, philosophy was most certainly about the truth. How could you know what better living is without knowing the truth? What "better" or "living" really are? Ethics, which is about what a good life is, depends on an understanding of human nature.

What do you think Socrates was doing when he attacked the sophists of Athens? Living better? I guess, if you like taking hemlock.

Re: Is Philosophy an Art?

#70

Post by routerl »

neonological wrote: post #61
routerl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? > Yeah I can meta the entire universe together Metaphysics is very specifically about the underlying assumptions of physics. It always has been, even though the meaning of the word physics has changed wildly ove…

> sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? Animism sits side by side with metaphysics under philosophy. >... When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn. You can even metameta. I’m saying the legitimacy of talking about metaphysics is different from the legitimacy of say metatoilets. Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still…

You're really just arguing against an imagined opponent, at this point.

> Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day.

No it isn't. I'm talking about professional philosophers.

> it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science.

No it isn't. Not by anyone that matters.

> When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn.

I don't care. Metaphysics is where "meta" comes from, and it has a specific meaning and interpretation, within professional philosophy. You are not referring to this specific meaning, and so I don't care what your thoughts are anymore.

You're tilting at windmills my friend.

Post reply on HN