5 ms·
Well then I stand corrected on what philosophers (at least analytic ones) believe. I even agree that mathematics is the closest thing to Analytic philosophy.
by adrianratnapala 10y ago
Well then I stand corrected on what philosophers (at least analytic ones) believe. I even agree that mathematics is the closest thing to Analytic philosophy. But it is still very telling that in your third para, you list names instead of theorems.
And you are right to do so, for the reasons I explained in my post above.
When you talk of current research, then sure, you talk of modern philosophers. But that's still studying a tradition: just the latest versions of it. When teaching students you reach further back in time (just as maths students learn ancient theorems rather than modern ones).
The conceptual barriers to entry that you say face Asian contributions are a consequenceof the whole discipline having learned more Aristotle than Kongzi in philosophy 101. Because the 101 class (in any field) is what sets the terminology and background assumptions behind even modern research.
- a_humean 10y agoBecause I was leading to my point about citation networks and didn't want to bore you to death about theory names like causal theories of reference and semantic externalism in philosophy of language.
- ced 10y agoDid any of these modern theories come from non-western parts of the world? "Causal theories of reference" looks interesting from an AI perspective. Do you know how it relates to the math discipline, causality (eg. Pearl)?
- a_humean 10y agoDoes Australian count as non-western, in which case Armstrong's contributions debunk the entire article?! Joking aside, I don't really know of a lineage or pedigree for a major active research area that is non-western, but I am not and was not active in the history of philosophy. Philosophers working in metaphysics and especially causation are aware of Pearl, and the literature on causation in Philosophy is very large, old, and active. It is also clear that Pearl is also aware of the literature in Philosophy on causation and conditionals as he does cite people like Robert Stalnaker and David Lewis. However, there is a slight difference in concerns on the topic of causation/causality. Philosophers are usually interested in providing a reductive account of causation by providing necessary and sufficient conditions for causation, as apposed to modelling known causal structures to predict what interventions might have on novel systems. That said I do know that L.A. Paul, Ned Hall, Hitchcock, and Menzies have done some work trying to incorporate the insights from the causal modelling approach done by Pearl and colleagues. Some links in case you want to explore further. Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an amazing free resource if you want to look something up: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning/
- shanacarp 10y agowhich would you recommend for a beginner to read. looks interesting
- a_humean 10y agoI would check out Philosophy Bites, which is a podcast interviewing active research philosophers in 15-20 minutes about their topics. http://www.philosophybites.com/ http://www.philosophybites.com/ Check out Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is free and edited by active research philosophers on pretty much every major topic and figure. http://plato.stanford.edu/ http://plato.stanford.edu/ Naming and Necessity by Kripke is about reference and the causal theory of reference, but it assume a decent amount (in case that is what you were asking for specifically). The Very Short Introductions series have some really good booklets if you want quick ways to jump into a topic. A few other books: B Russell The Problems of Philosophy. OUP (dated, but a classic general introduction) Simon Blackburn Think. Oxford (nice general introduction) Tim Crane The Mechanical Mind. Penguin (Nice introduction to phil of mind) A J Ayer Language, Truth, and Logic. Penguin (dated, but a classic) D Hume Enquiries T Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Univ of Chicago Press
- shanacarp 10y agoKuhn's been on my reading list for a while. I think my fiancé has a copy of Ayer around Plato/stanford is just overwhelming.