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

81–90 of 154 posts

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

#81

Post by FabHK »

ashika wrote: post #73
FabHK wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about the relevance of ancient philosophical ideas to modern society's dilemmata, and progress in philosophy over the ages, in a fictionalised setting where Plato visits Google. I think "clickbait" is a bit harsh here.

i think its a fair condensation. the discussion of google is pretty incidental and given the lack of any actual official connection to GOOG, i think we should be shrewd in our assessment; it's in the title to sell more books.

I hadn't thought of that, because I knew the premise. I wouldn't say that it's been done on purpose to sell more books, but I could absolutely understand, now that you mention it, if someone bought the book based on the title and would be extremely disappointed by it. (I mean, I knew sort of what it was about and was disappointed...)

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

#82

Post by brlewis »

jhbadger wrote: post #80
brlewis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices Buddhism is considered a religion and does not fit that description. Your emphatic capslock notwithstanding, there's no single defining element. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

How so? Reincarnation is every bit as supernatural as Christian Heaven, and there are accompanying practices that are supposed to influence the outcome of that via karma.

I did not think impersonal entities were what the gp post was talking about; apologies if they were. But even including impersonal supernatural entities, the wikipedia page I cited shows that's not a defining characteristic.

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

#83

Post by free_rms »

acqq wrote: post #79
keiferski wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I claimed at all. I simply said the values were formed in a Christian context. Today, in our global world, the same values absolutely have changed previously different cultures. Japan prior to 1946 doesn't have a universalist (formed in Christianity) democratic tradition, which was forced upon it by the West. India has a similar story with the caste system. It doesn't mean that they are Christians, bu…

But you wrote: "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."" Where you effectively claim that "Christian religion" can be one where somebody is even one who doesn't believe in supernatural. Because... some other values c…

Consider the "protestant work ethic". Most of the northeast is now either Catholic or Agnostic/Atheist, yet it persists, and all sorts of moral judgments are colored by it.

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

#84

Post by ZainRiz »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #55
randlet wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Rather, in modern, western English we consider "religion" to mean that. Islam for examples uses the word 'Deen', the meaning of it includes how you looked at the world and your entire way of life.

Deen means basically exactly the stuff you say religion is not a synonym for :)

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

#85

Post by lukevdp »

kritiko wrote: post #24
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.

Your question reminded me of this quote from David Foster Wallace's This is Water: Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to wor…

> There is no such thing as not worshipping

Yes there is

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

#86

Post by acqq »

free_rms wrote: post #83
acqq wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you wrote: "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."" Where you effectively claim that "Christian religion" can be one where somebody is even one who doesn't believe in supernatural. Because... some other values c…

Consider the "protestant work ethic". Most of the northeast is now either Catholic or Agnostic/Atheist, yet it persists, and all sorts of moral judgments are colored by it.

A big part of western world was never "protestant" and wouldn't say it has that "ethic."

Nevertheless, even having that "ethic" doesn't make one a believer in supernatural "messiah" properties of a person called Jesus or in the afterlife or expected punishment or reward then or in the mere existence of some almighty supernatural entity with any capability which conflicts with scientific knowledge.

To quote user keiferski from another post: "to say that the contemporary American definition is all that counts is a bit historically ignorant."

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

#87

Post by RichardCA »

brlewis wrote: post #63
NikolaNovak wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices Buddhism is considered a religion and does not fit that description. Your emphatic capslock notwithstanding, there's no single defining element. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

> Buddhism is considered a religion and does not fit that description.

That's a can of worms. A pretty big one, actually.

https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2015/05/27/why-did-the...

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

#88

Post by dragonwriter »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #55
randlet wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

"Religion" isn't a word in "most languages". "Religion" in English and the closely-related terms in closely-related languages may mean (or at least strongly imply) something like that (though with a god or God, specifically, not merely "a supernatural entity") simply because of the dominant belief systems to which the terms applied in the West (mostly, varieties of Near Eastern Monotheism), but even so they are frequently applied to systems from outside which don't have an "ordered belief in a supernatural entity", such as Confucianism.

> 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"

With, again, the caveat that it is more specific (referring to one or more gods, not merely any supernatural entities), we already have such a word, adopted specifically to focus in on that aspect and not the other elements of belief and practice which "religion" typically includes and may sometimes be used to refer to without an identifiable god anywhere in sight: "theism".

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

#89

Post by keiferski »

acqq wrote: post #79
keiferski wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I claimed at all. I simply said the values were formed in a Christian context. Today, in our global world, the same values absolutely have changed previously different cultures. Japan prior to 1946 doesn't have a universalist (formed in Christianity) democratic tradition, which was forced upon it by the West. India has a similar story with the caste system. It doesn't mean that they are Christians, bu…

But you wrote: "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."" Where you effectively claim that "Christian religion" can be one where somebody is even one who doesn't believe in supernatural. Because... some other values c…

As I said before, it is a complex topic and there are many difficult questions to answer. But, I think it's more helpful to understand religions as entire ways of life rather than simple affirmations of belief. My observation is that people today define much of their identity by what they say and not necessarily by how they act or what they value. Whether that is what they truly are is again, a complex question.

With Christianity, for example, the history there is immensely complicated. There are perhaps an infinite number of interpretations of Jesus' teachings and actions, many of which place far less focus on belief than on works (actions.) Other groups don't care whatsoever what any organized church says and base their beliefs and actions on traditions or on the Bible itself. Paul, the Catholic Church, Martin Luther, and innumerable others have shaped "Christianity" over the last two thousand years, so to say that the contemporary American definition is all that counts is a bit historically ignorant.

Beyond that, it's also unclear precisely what "supernatural" means in this context.

In sum: it's complicated.

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

#90

Post by crazygringo »

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 this quote only becomes true if you substitute Plato with Aristotle.

Post reply on HN