3 ms·

Philosophy is simply irrelevant. Discoveries in physical sciences lead to new technology or just to a better understanding of how the world works and how we fi

by VeilEm 11y ago

Philosophy is simply irrelevant. Discoveries in physical sciences lead to new technology or just to a better understanding of how the world works and how we fit in it. Research in social sciences, when the political courage exists to pursue it, can lead to better policy, and better lives for everyone. Philosophy just seems to be a bunch of circle jerking around esoteric terms and concepts with no trickle down benefits. If Philosophy departments around the world simply shutdown over night, would anyone notice? Would anyone be the worse of? Even in the long term? Probably not. Well maybe would be philosophy students would pursue more employable fields for their undergraduate study, increasing the labor pool and competition for jobs.

yarou 11y ago
Philosophy is irrelevant? That's really quite a bizarre statement to make. Philosophy is quite useful in defining AI (philosophy of mind) and quantum physics (philosophy of physics) to name a few. Your comment is beyond narrow minded and ignorant; I should seriously hope you don't hold such views.
- VeilEm 11y ago
  I most certainly do hold this as my view, and it's had zero negative impact. In fact only positive impact as I'm not spending time wasting on thinking for the sake of thinking. Philosophy is a mental trap that produces no value. One of my favorite books is Candide. The book ends with Candide tending to his garden. This is how I live my life. It works pretty well. How many modern philosophers use their knowledge to live good lives and improve the lives of others?
  - randomguyatwork 11y ago
    I would argue that philosophy isn't a choice, if ones mind works philosophically, one will think about philosophy. As an armchair philosopher, I'd say my ideas have helped my live my life in a more positive way, and has helped me to expose others to ideas that can be fun to think about and helpful for dealing with various life situations.
  - peterashford 11y ago
    "Philosophy is a mental trap that produces no value." Then you find no value in the past 1000 years of Western thought? Philosophy helps me live a good life - I have a pretty good bullshit detector. Your post set it off quite well.
    - VeilEm 11y ago
      It think it was instrumental in helping us get to where we are. My comment is more around modern philosophy. Now we understand the importance of empirical observation and the benefits of liberty and fair laws we've probably maximized the value we get out of talking about how to think. Like I asked before, do you think that there would be a negative impact if philosophy departments disappeared overnight? What would they be?
- tmerr 11y ago
  I don't have anything against philosophy. But I can't help but think if you want to understand quantum physics you should study quantum physics. And if you want to understand AI you should study AI. Starting with philosophy rather than the evidence is a good way to get entrenched in world views that don't make sense. In AI the dominant attitude is that the mind can be considered a machine and that consciousness can be ignored. It dodges the philosophical questions entirely in the name of practicality. If anyone's going to find the answer to how consciousness works it will be neuroscientists, so in the meantime what's the point of debating it on philosophical grounds? Similarly quantum physics didn't originate from philosophers who thought "It just doesn't seem right that the universe is deterministic! At a microscopic level electron positions must be probabilistic". No, these are things scientists figure out and philosophers reconcile. It's not clear that AI researchers or quantum physicsts would lose anything by ignoring philosophers.
  - peterashford 11y ago
    because they are in fact doing philosophy at the limits of their fields. when people debate which theories might fit the phenomena best, they are doing philosophy.
- Redoubts 11y ago
  >Philosophy is quite useful in defining ... quantum physics Could you point to a good treatment of this? My experience with people waxing philosophical about quantum has almost always been negative, to the point where I regret the conversation ever taking place.
benten10 11y ago
Ohh man, this is too good! While I vehemently disagree with you (without much emotional connection though. Don't mind losing this one), this is STRAIGHT out of 19th century Russian novels. In particular, I'm thinking Turgenev's 'Fathers And Sons'[1]. In it, the university-educated, 'modern' characters, the nihilistic scientific men present very similar views. 'Science can explain away everything, that is what reality is', they proclaim, dismissing any sort of philosophical arguments (rather arrogantly, IMHO, but we can argue over that). It's kind of longwinded (aren't they all, with the exception of Chekov?), but HIGHLY recommended. You get the same sense of change and revolution, and 'waiting for great things to happen' in the novel as I often see in futurists these days. I don't want to cheapen the experience, but this high-school-level summary sums it up reasonably well[2]: >The main character of Fathers and Sons, Bazarov, does not want to occupy a philosophical position. Yet nihilism, whether he likes it or not, is a philosophy, a philosophy of destruction and renunciation. Bazarov is such an intellectual character that throughout the novel we see him struggle to understand each new situation in which he is put. Yet, from his intellectual point of view, he renounces romance and many other human values that make life worth living. Part of the drama of the novel is watching how Bazarov can go on living with his philosophy. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel) 2. http://www.shmoop.com/fathers-and-sons/philosophical-viewpoints-theme.html http://www.shmoop.com/fathers-and-sons/philosophical-viewpoi...
steveklabnik 11y ago
> Philosophy just seems to be You may want to investigate what philosophy _is_, rather than what it seems to be.

by VeilEm 11y ago

yarou 11y ago

Philosophy is irrelevant? That's really quite a bizarre statement to make. Philosophy is quite useful in defining AI (philosophy of mind) and quantum physics (philosophy of physics) to name a few. Your comment is beyond narrow minded and ignorant; I should seriously hope you don't hold such views.

VeilEm 11y ago
I most certainly do hold this as my view, and it's had zero negative impact. In fact only positive impact as I'm not spending time wasting on thinking for the sake of thinking. Philosophy is a mental trap that produces no value. One of my favorite books is Candide. The book ends with Candide tending to his garden. This is how I live my life. It works pretty well. How many modern philosophers use their knowledge to live good lives and improve the lives of others?
- randomguyatwork 11y ago
  I would argue that philosophy isn't a choice, if ones mind works philosophically, one will think about philosophy. As an armchair philosopher, I'd say my ideas have helped my live my life in a more positive way, and has helped me to expose others to ideas that can be fun to think about and helpful for dealing with various life situations.
- peterashford 11y ago
  "Philosophy is a mental trap that produces no value." Then you find no value in the past 1000 years of Western thought? Philosophy helps me live a good life - I have a pretty good bullshit detector. Your post set it off quite well.
  - VeilEm 11y ago
    It think it was instrumental in helping us get to where we are. My comment is more around modern philosophy. Now we understand the importance of empirical observation and the benefits of liberty and fair laws we've probably maximized the value we get out of talking about how to think. Like I asked before, do you think that there would be a negative impact if philosophy departments disappeared overnight? What would they be?
tmerr 11y ago
I don't have anything against philosophy. But I can't help but think if you want to understand quantum physics you should study quantum physics. And if you want to understand AI you should study AI. Starting with philosophy rather than the evidence is a good way to get entrenched in world views that don't make sense. In AI the dominant attitude is that the mind can be considered a machine and that consciousness can be ignored. It dodges the philosophical questions entirely in the name of practicality. If anyone's going to find the answer to how consciousness works it will be neuroscientists, so in the meantime what's the point of debating it on philosophical grounds? Similarly quantum physics didn't originate from philosophers who thought "It just doesn't seem right that the universe is deterministic! At a microscopic level electron positions must be probabilistic". No, these are things scientists figure out and philosophers reconcile. It's not clear that AI researchers or quantum physicsts would lose anything by ignoring philosophers.
- peterashford 11y ago
  because they are in fact doing philosophy at the limits of their fields. when people debate which theories might fit the phenomena best, they are doing philosophy.
Redoubts 11y ago
>Philosophy is quite useful in defining ... quantum physics Could you point to a good treatment of this? My experience with people waxing philosophical about quantum has almost always been negative, to the point where I regret the conversation ever taking place.

benten10 11y ago

Ohh man, this is too good! While I vehemently disagree with you (without much emotional connection though. Don't mind losing this one), this is STRAIGHT out of 19th century Russian novels. In particular, I'm thinking Turgenev's 'Fathers And Sons'[1]. In it, the university-educated, 'modern' characters, the nihilistic scientific men present very similar views. 'Science can explain away everything, that is what reality is', they proclaim, dismissing any sort of philosophical arguments (rather arrogantly, IMHO, but we can argue over that). It's kind of longwinded (aren't they all, with the exception of Chekov?), but HIGHLY recommended. You get the same sense of change and revolution, and 'waiting for great things to happen' in the novel as I often see in futurists these days. I don't want to cheapen the experience, but this high-school-level summary sums it up reasonably well[2]: >The main character of Fathers and Sons, Bazarov, does not want to occupy a philosophical position. Yet nihilism, whether he likes it or not, is a philosophy, a philosophy of destruction and renunciation. Bazarov is such an intellectual character that throughout the novel we see him struggle to understand each new situation in which he is put. Yet, from his intellectual point of view, he renounces romance and many other human values that make life worth living. Part of the drama of the novel is watching how Bazarov can go on living with his philosophy. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel) 2. http://www.shmoop.com/fathers-and-sons/philosophical-viewpoints-theme.html http://www.shmoop.com/fathers-and-sons/philosophical-viewpoi...

steveklabnik 11y ago

> Philosophy just seems to be You may want to investigate what philosophy _is_, rather than what it seems to be.