Philosophy is not like software engineering. There's a lot more reading that needs to be done before you can make a contribution. A lot of it progresses by just reading the works of the established masters, getting ideas, and publishing your thoughts about what they had to say. You don't start from scratch. You build on what is already there. Addition by addition the field progresses and removes bad ideas or clarifie…
What is the state of the art in today's philosophy? What's the latest truly novel idea?
Agreed that 'state of the art' is the wrong question - but, it is worth watching David Chalmers challenge progress in philosophy (bear with the first 20 minutes or so - it gets better).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUfz6oahp2Q
Always warms my heart to see philosophy on top of HN. Philosophy is hard -- much harder than one would think. And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. On the other hand, it's very political, and a lot of it is mental masturbation. Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. Philosophy of Mind, apart from a few great minds (Chalmers,…
"Philosophers, in short, do all kinds of things: from pushing the boundaries of exotic logics, to solving ethical problems, to systematizing natural language or understanding the metaphysics of causality."
I think you're mostly talking about analytic philosophy.[1] That's dominant in English-speaking countries, and in the process of dominating most everywhere else. But Continental philosophy[2] also exists, and has pretty different concerns and methodologies.
Always warms my heart to see philosophy on top of HN. Philosophy is hard -- much harder than one would think. And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. On the other hand, it's very political, and a lot of it is mental masturbation. Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. Philosophy of Mind, apart from a few great minds (Chalmers,…
Philosophy is easy . It takes a different skill set and is a more developed field, however their is nothing that verifies mistakes so you can succeeded without being absolutely correct. The problem is when you confuse what you need to do to succeed with the search for truth.
If your claim is that your philosophical position can not be verified, then sure, nothing verifies it. Typically, however, philosophers actually claim their ideas are in tight correlation with reality. That offers plenty of opportunities for verification.
> there is nothing that verifies mistakes so you can succeeded without being absolutely correct Yes there is. The primary method of argument is proof.
At a practical level acceptance in The Philosophical Review arguably the top Journal does not require some sort of mechanical formal verification. The barriers to entry are no less difficult from it's absence, but the barriers to accuracy are defiantly lower.
Does any journal exist which includes mechanical formal verification as part of its acceptance process? Not even mathematical journals do this. Hell, mathematicians would probably lose their minds if such a thing was suggested. Just look at the crisis the Four Color Theorem proof caused when it came out.
Philosophy is not like software engineering. There's a lot more reading that needs to be done before you can make a contribution. A lot of it progresses by just reading the works of the established masters, getting ideas, and publishing your thoughts about what they had to say. You don't start from scratch. You build on what is already there. Addition by addition the field progresses and removes bad ideas or clarifie…
If philosophy is reasoning in its purest form, why so much reference to other work? Shouldn't it be like math where we logically conclude something and it is true regardless of what others think? If not, then it seems a less pure form of reasoning than math.
You're already pre-supposing SO much. You're pre-supposing a shared objective universe which we are both capable of observing, perceiving, explaining, and predicting. You are presuming a very specific order of causation and effect. All of these things are not 'given' in philosophy and can be manipulated to various effect (like hyperbolic geometries in mathematics). The argument that the universe exists apart from our perception or opinion of it is one position of many. (I happen to think that anyone who claims not to actually hold that opinion in the most deepest sense is a liar, but that's a different issue.) Philosophy is great for splitting hairs and breaking things down to their necessary essence - much like good programming does.
Even mathematical proof is a relatively low standard in practice. Just look at all the retracted papers that have been published. Erratum are surprisingly widespread for such a formal system.
Making a mistake has nothing to do with using an accurate system. You can have the most precise ruler in the world and yet use it incorrectly.
My point is that perfection is not required. So, calling something a proof does not mean it must be accurate.
Philosophy is not like software engineering. There's a lot more reading that needs to be done before you can make a contribution. A lot of it progresses by just reading the works of the established masters, getting ideas, and publishing your thoughts about what they had to say. You don't start from scratch. You build on what is already there. Addition by addition the field progresses and removes bad ideas or clarifie…
If philosophy is reasoning in its purest form, why so much reference to other work? Shouldn't it be like math where we logically conclude something and it is true regardless of what others think? If not, then it seems a less pure form of reasoning than math.
Math relies just as much, if not even moreso, on proofs and logic that came beforehand.
It is not like every math paper starts out with the axioms of Peano arithmetic.
Always warms my heart to see philosophy on top of HN. Philosophy is hard -- much harder than one would think. And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. On the other hand, it's very political, and a lot of it is mental masturbation. Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. Philosophy of Mind, apart from a few great minds (Chalmers,…
Not down-voting you, because it's an interesting comment, but: > far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. This is just a dumb, specious statement. Would expect better from a philosopher ;) Also, would be interested why you think: > Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. What makes it bogus?
I hear (but is it true?) that for a philosopher to build a career, it is important to be thought as very smart by other philosophers --- and that this is much more so than in other fields, such as the sciences. If it's true, it would explain why appearing smart is stressed.
