4 ms·

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 popula

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.

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.