3 ms·

There is an outstanding issue though: it really is the case that contemporary analysis of philosophical issues are far better than historical ones. Since the m

There is an outstanding issue though: it really is the case that contemporary analysis of philosophical issues are far better than historical ones. Since the middle of the 20th C. every academic discipline, including philosophy, has devloped to the point where there are many new issues -- and of the old outstanding issues, these are presented much more clearly. There are a great number of mistakes in the history of philosophy which only became apparent after a systematic treatment. The reason I think, people read old philosophy is due to how academic contemporary research philosophy is. Research conducted on clearly identified and analysed problems exists in journals and in quite forboding books. Historical philosophy is part of a cultural discussion and is often presented in a simpler, smaller and more digestible way. As far as research goes, contemporary research philosophers in academic depts do not read the history of philosophy. Lay people do.

paganel 10y ago
> As far as research goes, contemporary research philosophers in academic depts do not read the history of philosophy. Lay people do. I'd say that is a very grave mistake, and I admit I'm a lay person. Just a week or so ago there was a philosopher that died and whose views on morals and life and death were shared on HN, and I have to say that they didn't seem more profound than what a high-school pupil would have written, I certainly learned more from skimming through the pre-Socratics than reading that philosopher's views on stuff. Maybe that is an issue with the US Analytical school of philosophy, which seems to me that it really tries to answer "serious" questions like what's the difference between right and wrong and other nonsense like that, like there is a "guaranteed" answer to these types of questions. It's a stupid positivist view on human understanding that I thought died in the early 1800s.
- coldtea 10y ago
  I agree with you, I think it's the difference between the US (analytic etc) and continental philosophy approach. If anything a good grasp of the "history of philosophy" protects one from 100% of the crap that passes for deep thinking in politics, culture, current events analysis, self-help, etc.
- mjburgess 10y ago
  Then as a lay person you've made a profound misreading of the situation. In meta-ethics there are a variety of positions. If moral realism happens to be popular among philosophers working in meta-ethics it would be because they have been extremeley well informed about a whole vareity of arguments in a systematic way that you're not informed about. And equally, the reverse. It will always be the case however, that contrary positions will receive a capable defence by some one. Lay people often come in with a scepticism that is often rooted in some intuition that ends up being quite unfounded when spelled out clearly. Analytic philosophy is not a school. Its just another word for "research philosophy" really, by which we mean a practice of being systematic about arguments, problems and how they interact. There is no deliberate conensus on the basis of some ideological agreement that makes them "a school". This is all historical, guid-hall style ideological grouping that has no place in modern academia. Of course, this is exactly what continental philosophy idealises.
  - paganel 10y ago
    > In meta-ethics there are a variety of positions. If moral realism happens to be popular among philosophers working in meta-ethics it would be because they have been extremeley well informed about a whole vareity of arguments in a systematic way that you're not informed about. And equally, the reverse. Maybe I read this wrong, but you're just saying something of the like: "Experts know better, you're not expert, so just shut up". > Lay people often come in with a scepticism that is often rooted in some intuition that ends up being quite unfounded when spelled out clearly. I generally don't interfere in subjects I don't know many things about or which don't have a direct effect on my life, but I'd say that philosophy interferes with our lives (of all of us) each and every day, there are no "lay-men" when it comes to philosophy (I'll refer you to Heraclitus's speech about how one can "talk about philosophy even in the kitchen", but you seem not to care about dead people from the past), because each of us makes philosophy-related decisions every day. > Analytic philosophy is not a school. Its just another word for "research philosophy" really, by which we mean a practice of being systematic about arguments, problems and how they interact. That's the positivist approach I was criticizing, when it comes to social sciences there is absolutely no way for one to be "systematic", it's just a "glasperlenspiel". Someone above me mentioned that we already know "that murder is bad", to which I'd say: Is that so? Then how come that we allow abortions? How come that we allow euthanasia? How come we allow wars? (and before anyone here accuses me of being anti-abortion or anti-euthanasia, I'm not, I'm just calling them for what they are). > This is all historical, guid-hall style ideological grouping that has no place in modern academia. Of course, this is exactly what continental philosophy idealises. I don't care a damn about academia, pardon my French. I just want to be able to better understand what's been happening around me (and what's been happening for around the last 2-3 thousand years), and I found philosophy to be a good tool.
mcguire 10y ago
Would you have a reference for, say, a modern, systematic take on moral philosophy?
- mjburgess 10y ago
  Names: John Rawls, Philippa Foot, Michael Sandel, Mary Midgely, etc. Something like: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contemporary-Metaethics-Introduction-Alexander-Miller/dp/074564659X https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contemporary-Metaethics-Introductio... perhaps.

paganel 10y ago

> As far as research goes, contemporary research philosophers in academic depts do not read the history of philosophy. Lay people do. I'd say that is a very grave mistake, and I admit I'm a lay person. Just a week or so ago there was a philosopher that died and whose views on morals and life and death were shared on HN, and I have to say that they didn't seem more profound than what a high-school pupil would have written, I certainly learned more from skimming through the pre-Socratics than reading that philosopher's views on stuff. Maybe that is an issue with the US Analytical school of philosophy, which seems to me that it really tries to answer "serious" questions like what's the difference between right and wrong and other nonsense like that, like there is a "guaranteed" answer to these types of questions. It's a stupid positivist view on human understanding that I thought died in the early 1800s.

coldtea 10y ago
I agree with you, I think it's the difference between the US (analytic etc) and continental philosophy approach. If anything a good grasp of the "history of philosophy" protects one from 100% of the crap that passes for deep thinking in politics, culture, current events analysis, self-help, etc.
mjburgess 10y ago
Then as a lay person you've made a profound misreading of the situation. In meta-ethics there are a variety of positions. If moral realism happens to be popular among philosophers working in meta-ethics it would be because they have been extremeley well informed about a whole vareity of arguments in a systematic way that you're not informed about. And equally, the reverse. It will always be the case however, that contrary positions will receive a capable defence by some one. Lay people often come in with a scepticism that is often rooted in some intuition that ends up being quite unfounded when spelled out clearly. Analytic philosophy is not a school. Its just another word for "research philosophy" really, by which we mean a practice of being systematic about arguments, problems and how they interact. There is no deliberate conensus on the basis of some ideological agreement that makes them "a school". This is all historical, guid-hall style ideological grouping that has no place in modern academia. Of course, this is exactly what continental philosophy idealises.
- paganel 10y ago
  > In meta-ethics there are a variety of positions. If moral realism happens to be popular among philosophers working in meta-ethics it would be because they have been extremeley well informed about a whole vareity of arguments in a systematic way that you're not informed about. And equally, the reverse. Maybe I read this wrong, but you're just saying something of the like: "Experts know better, you're not expert, so just shut up". > Lay people often come in with a scepticism that is often rooted in some intuition that ends up being quite unfounded when spelled out clearly. I generally don't interfere in subjects I don't know many things about or which don't have a direct effect on my life, but I'd say that philosophy interferes with our lives (of all of us) each and every day, there are no "lay-men" when it comes to philosophy (I'll refer you to Heraclitus's speech about how one can "talk about philosophy even in the kitchen", but you seem not to care about dead people from the past), because each of us makes philosophy-related decisions every day. > Analytic philosophy is not a school. Its just another word for "research philosophy" really, by which we mean a practice of being systematic about arguments, problems and how they interact. That's the positivist approach I was criticizing, when it comes to social sciences there is absolutely no way for one to be "systematic", it's just a "glasperlenspiel". Someone above me mentioned that we already know "that murder is bad", to which I'd say: Is that so? Then how come that we allow abortions? How come that we allow euthanasia? How come we allow wars? (and before anyone here accuses me of being anti-abortion or anti-euthanasia, I'm not, I'm just calling them for what they are). > This is all historical, guid-hall style ideological grouping that has no place in modern academia. Of course, this is exactly what continental philosophy idealises. I don't care a damn about academia, pardon my French. I just want to be able to better understand what's been happening around me (and what's been happening for around the last 2-3 thousand years), and I found philosophy to be a good tool.

mcguire 10y ago

Would you have a reference for, say, a modern, systematic take on moral philosophy?

mjburgess 10y ago
Names: John Rawls, Philippa Foot, Michael Sandel, Mary Midgely, etc. Something like: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contemporary-Metaethics-Introduction-Alexander-Miller/dp/074564659X https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contemporary-Metaethics-Introductio... perhaps.