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

91–100 of 154 posts

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

#91

Post by dpoochieni »

FabHK wrote: post #72
ARandomerDude wrote: post #3

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…

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist?

And they do proselytize quite a bit. The average atheist is as separate from the process of science as the average NFL fan is from actually scoring a touchdown. They're both spectators under a similar set of illusions regarding their claims as to their relevance in each ones game. Go TEAM SCIENCE!!!

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

#92

Post by FabHK »

keiferski wrote: post #25
leephillips wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t think of one serious “public intellectual” who says that “philosophy is outdated or useless” and I’d be curious to have a name or two.

"Stephen Hawking recently fluttered the academic dovecotes by writing in his new book The Grand Design – and repeating to an eager company of interviewers and journalists – that philosophy as practised nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space. More precisely, he wrote that philosophy is ‘dead’ since it hasn’t kept up with the latest developments in science, especially theoretical physics." https:…

First, Tyson didn't claim that philosophy is not a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world, but that for any individual, "if you are distracted by your questions so that you can’t move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world." The latter is a much more defensible claim.

Next, it's worth quoting from the conclusion of the article defending philosophy against Hawking:

> No doubt there is a fair amount of ill-informed, obtuse, or ideologically angled philosophy that either refuses or tries but fails to engage with the concerns of present-day science. One can understand Hawking’s impatience – or downright exasperation – with some of the half-baked notions put around by refuseniks and would-be engageniks alike.

People justifiably take issue with some aspects of philosophy (postmodernism, for example, and its misuse of scientific terminology, as exposed in Bricmont & Sokal's Intellectual Impostors), and a few scientists certainly overshoot in their criticism, or make it unduly broad.

But I don't think it's accurate to claim that "today the 'public intellectuals' often say philosophy is outdated or useless".

Lastly, even if one thinks that philosophy is largely useless today, that doesn't imply at all that one considers "21st-century American values [...] the best, final ones, never to be questioned again".

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

#93

Post by dpoochieni »

ko27 wrote: post #19
shoreofwonder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every decision you make is made under a great deal of uncertainty. A person typically holds overarching beliefs that govern those decisions. For example, how much value do you put into close relationships versus distant ones? Is charity worthwhile if it helps someone who can't help you back? Maybe someone who doesn't even know you?

So you are saying that you need some sort of personal gain (ticket to an utopian afterlife for example) to be a nice person?

That is such a cliched, average atheist argument.

Btw, even taking a very atheistic perspective, only focused on how humanity evolved (which is a selfish process in spite of your future protestations of how you have trascended it) we can see we evolved to be nice only out of self-preservation.

One would think that is the ultimate personal gain but I'll grant you that reminding yourself you are a good person must be a psychological gain of its own.

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

#94

Post by paulryanrogers »

dpoochieni wrote: post #91
FabHK wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist? And they do proselytize quite a bit. The average atheist is as separate from the process of science as the average NFL fan is from actually scoring a touchdown. They're both spectators under a similar set of illusions regarding their claims as to their relevance in each ones game. Go TEAM SCIENCE!!!

No more than climate denial is the eschatology of Christianity.

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

#95

Post by dpoochieni »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #94
dpoochieni wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist? And they do proselytize quite a bit. The average atheist is as separate from the process of science as the average NFL fan is from actually scoring a touchdown. They're both spectators under a similar set of illusions regarding their claims as to their relevance in each ones game. Go TEAM SCIENCE!!!

No more than climate denial is the eschatology of Christianity.

At least we are getting somewhere now :)

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

#96

Post by FabHK »

dpoochieni wrote: post #91
FabHK wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist? And they do proselytize quite a bit. The average atheist is as separate from the process of science as the average NFL fan is from actually scoring a touchdown. They're both spectators under a similar set of illusions regarding their claims as to their relevance in each ones game. Go TEAM SCIENCE!!!

It might be, for many (not for me, for example), but it certainly isn't a defining or necessary feature. Future atheists, for example, with entirely different concerns (and eschatology) would still properly call themselves atheists if they're without belief in some deity.

The average liberal might like their caffè latte, but neither classical nor progressive liberalism contains a commitment to certain beverages.

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

#97

Post by redler »

dpoochieni wrote: post #91
FabHK wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist? And they do proselytize quite a bit. The average atheist is as separate from the process of science as the average NFL fan is from actually scoring a touchdown. They're both spectators under a similar set of illusions regarding their claims as to their relevance in each ones game. Go TEAM SCIENCE!!!

Climate change can be extrapolated, through science, to a potentially very challenging future environment. Eschatology is about religious constructs like judgment by deities, prophecies, life after death, "end times", and the like. Believe in the latter if you like, but the former is about evidence, statistics, logic, and reasoning.

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

#98

Post by svieira »

FabHK wrote: post #72
ARandomerDude wrote: post #3

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…

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Saying "there is no God" instead of "I don't know whether or not God exists" presumes a certain understanding of cause and effect, of being and essence, of meaning and purpose. After all, the atheist says "there is no need for another uncaused cause because ..." - that "because" serves the purpose of religion. I would argue that one cannot be an atheist without that "because". An agnostic can act in the fashion of an atheist (presumptive atheism), but an ill-considered atheist-in-act is not an atheist in intellect.

In fact the branches of natural philosophy nominally used to make the determination "God cannot exist" by the atheist cannot speak to being and essence (because the sciences presuppose them) and cannot speak categorically to meaning and purpose (because those depend on what philosophy has determined about being and essence). Prescriptions on how to live (i. e. what the moral response to being must be) flow from the first two and therefore also cannot flow from science alone which presupposes whatever kind of universe the scientist finds himself existing in. "Can I derive 'ought' from 'is'" is presumed by the physicist and can only be addressed by the philosopher.

To put it another way, one cannot be an atheist without a religion - one can only be agnostic.

To put it a third way, Cicero says "religion consists in offering service and ceremonial rites to a superior nature that men call divine." The atheist says "there is none to serve" - but that is patently untrue, for in that case there would be no end to strive after and all atheists would perish by inaction. Therefore, all atheists have chosen to serve some superior nature, either themselves, or some ideal (Chaos, Order, Balance, etc.).

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

#99

Post by redler »

FabHK wrote: post #72
ARandomerDude wrote: post #3

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…

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

As has been said elsewhere, atheism is a religion the same way not playing baseball is a sport.

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

#100

Post by dragonwriter »

dpoochieni wrote: post #91
FabHK wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many atheists also seem to proselytize with a religious fervor as well Could that be availability bias? You don't hear from the many that don't proselytise. > even something like atheism is a religion That's nonsense, a rhetorical subterfuge to defend religion ("oh, but you too have a religion.") maybe. Atheism has none of the things you claim (origin story and eschatology, prescriptions on how to live). Some (athe…

Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist? And they do proselytize quite a bit. The average atheist is as separate from the process of science as the average NFL fan is from actually scoring a touchdown. They're both spectators under a similar set of illusions regarding their claims as to their relevance in each ones game. Go TEAM SCIENCE!!!

> Hmmmm isn't climate change and enviromentalism in general the eschatology of the average modern atheist?

No, neither factual belief in climate change (in general, or more specifically anthropogenic climate change) nor ideological belief in environmentalism is eschatology ("the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind") to start with, and even if they have a weak correlation with atheism, there is no essential connection between them and atheism (they may sometimes have a common cause, in that both atheism and factual belief in climate change can be grounded in scientific rationalism.)

> And they do proselytize quite a bit.

Proselytizing atheists are disproportionately visible, because people that aren't trying to shove their beliefs down your throat are a lot less noticeable. So, sure, if you aren't an atheists, the people whose atheism you notice will be very disproportionately those who are proselytizers. That doesn't mean atheists in general are proseltyizers, and atheism has no unifying belief in the value of proselytization the way, say, mainstream Christianity does.

Post reply on HN