7 ms·

I wonder, then, how many experts in the discipline, and lay people (including me) come away with exactly the opposite conclusion. If you're going to fault Sart

I wonder, then, how many experts in the discipline, and lay people (including me) come away with exactly the opposite conclusion. If you're going to fault Sartre and talk about 20th c. academic philosophy, you may as well also fault Hegel or Nietzche or Marx for their 18th and 19th c. philosophy, and then Heraclitus for his 4th century BC obscurities. Maybe you only meant "continental" philosophy, but you'd probably need metaphilosophy to argue the point as to what is genuine and a "sophistical hustle". Apparently the people who study Sartre come out with some pretty interesting ideas[0]. It's a little tiring to hear people reading 50 pages of a French philosopher known for his difficulty and concluding that 20th c. academic philosophy is sophistry(?!)[1] A non-mathematician might just say the same thing about Erdos. The fact that people feel comfortable making such sweeping judgements on a wide-ranging and deep discipline is frankly shocking. You're not alone, however; the gwern.net guy has done the same. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/ [1] Sartre mostly wrote books on philosophy, rather than publishing in academic journals, alongside plays and novels. If you mean to talk about "academic philosophy", Sartre is certainly not your best example. Neither would Marx or Nietzche be good examples. Heidegger and Hegel maybe.

keiferski 7y ago
> The fact that people feel comfortable making such sweeping judgements on a wide-ranging and deep discipline is frankly shocking. You're not alone, however; the gwern.net guy has done the same. It's par for the course in tech, unfortunately. I think tech leadership in particular would benefit from a rigorous education in ethics.
- choonway 7y ago
  really? ethics? so.. which standards of ethics do you think leaders should adhere to? so many to choose from...
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > I think tech leadership in particular would benefit from a rigorous education in ethics. I’m not aware of any evidence that education in ethics leads to more ethical behavior though it obviously leads to being able to discuss ethical problems better. The evidence suggests ethicists steal more books than other philosophers[1]. ]1] Do ethicists steal more books? Eric Schwitzgebel If explicit cognition about morality promotes moral behavior then one might expect ethics professors to behave particularly well. However, professional ethicists’ behavior has never been empirically studied. The present research examined the rates at which ethics books are missing from leading academic libraries, compared to other philosophy books similar in age and popularity. Study 1 found that relatively obscure, contemporary ethics books of the sort likely to be borrowed mainly by professors and advanced students of philosophy were actually about 50% more likely to be missing than non-ethics books. Study 2 found that classic (pre-1900) ethics books were about twice as likely to be missing.
  - keiferski 7y ago
    This is such a hilarious bad study that I'm surprised anyone could link to it seriously. The theft rate of ethics books are stolen from "top academic libraries" is supposed to reflect on the overall effectiveness of ethical education? Sorry, but this is an abuse of the term "scientific study."
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      Do you have any evidence that learning about ethics leads to more ethical behavior?
      - keiferski 7y ago
        This is an enormously complex question which depends on first answering questions like what "learning about ethics" and "ethical behavior" mean. In any case, this paper covers most of the objections you are raising and answers them quite well, IMO: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2202/1940-1639.1613 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2202/1940-1639.1613
gwern 7y ago
FWIW, my degree was in philosophy, at a continental school, and I read more than 50 pages of Sartre.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  I was referring to your dismissal of Marx's thought on the basis of reading a post-Marxist work, Empire twice and not making any sense of it[0]. You reach a similarly rash conclusion: that "Marxism is intellecutally worthless" - something, I'm sure, many philosophers, heterodox economists, political economists, and sociologists would pick you up on. Even Samuelson had more to say about Marx than to call him intellectually worthless - a "minor post-Ricardian" (and despite that fact engaging in a debate with Marxian economists in very public publications). I supposed that if a vague criticism of Hardt and Negri is your justification for dismissing the school of thought they draw from (in, it should be mentioned, very controversial ways), you must not be able to say much about what most experts think of when they hear "Marxism": Capital, V.I. Lenin, Dobb/Meek/Sweezy, Postone, etc. Put it this way: every philosopher who has seriously engaged with Marx critically has not had the hubris to call Marxism "intellectually worthless" - flawed, logically inconsistent, immoral, convoluted, unnecessary, whatever, sure - but not worthless as a result of "sheer obscurity and bullshitting". The only part of Marx that has been called needlessly obscure (aside from misguided remarks by Pareto) is the Wertform - and Marxists themselves criticize that heavily. Some Marxists (Rational Choice Marxists) would even agree with you, and still hold Marx to be highly relevant and fruitful. Empire seems cherry-picked at best, and a dishonest representative of late 20th c. and 21st c. Marxian literature at worst. If it's all you've read from Marxists, then my apologies - but criticize Hardt and Negri, not the discipline as a whole, which has worked for the past century to create a great many introductory materials, lecture series, video series, companion guides and more. [0] https://www.gwern.net/Mistakes#communism https://www.gwern.net/Mistakes#communism
  - nl 7y ago
    >I was referring to your dismissal of Marx's thought on the basis of reading a post-Marxist work, Empire twice and not making any sense of it You are referring to gwern's "dismissal of Marx's thought" in your reply to everybodyknows? I'm confused.

keiferski 7y ago

> The fact that people feel comfortable making such sweeping judgements on a wide-ranging and deep discipline is frankly shocking. You're not alone, however; the gwern.net guy has done the same. It's par for the course in tech, unfortunately. I think tech leadership in particular would benefit from a rigorous education in ethics.

choonway 7y ago
really? ethics? so.. which standards of ethics do you think leaders should adhere to? so many to choose from...
barry-cotter 7y ago
> I think tech leadership in particular would benefit from a rigorous education in ethics. I’m not aware of any evidence that education in ethics leads to more ethical behavior though it obviously leads to being able to discuss ethical problems better. The evidence suggests ethicists steal more books than other philosophers[1]. ]1] Do ethicists steal more books? Eric Schwitzgebel If explicit cognition about morality promotes moral behavior then one might expect ethics professors to behave particularly well. However, professional ethicists’ behavior has never been empirically studied. The present research examined the rates at which ethics books are missing from leading academic libraries, compared to other philosophy books similar in age and popularity. Study 1 found that relatively obscure, contemporary ethics books of the sort likely to be borrowed mainly by professors and advanced students of philosophy were actually about 50% more likely to be missing than non-ethics books. Study 2 found that classic (pre-1900) ethics books were about twice as likely to be missing.
- keiferski 7y ago
  This is such a hilarious bad study that I'm surprised anyone could link to it seriously. The theft rate of ethics books are stolen from "top academic libraries" is supposed to reflect on the overall effectiveness of ethical education? Sorry, but this is an abuse of the term "scientific study."
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Do you have any evidence that learning about ethics leads to more ethical behavior?
    - keiferski 7y ago
      This is an enormously complex question which depends on first answering questions like what "learning about ethics" and "ethical behavior" mean. In any case, this paper covers most of the objections you are raising and answers them quite well, IMO: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2202/1940-1639.1613 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2202/1940-1639.1613

gwern 7y ago

FWIW, my degree was in philosophy, at a continental school, and I read more than 50 pages of Sartre.

claudiawerner 7y ago
I was referring to your dismissal of Marx's thought on the basis of reading a post-Marxist work, Empire twice and not making any sense of it[0]. You reach a similarly rash conclusion: that "Marxism is intellecutally worthless" - something, I'm sure, many philosophers, heterodox economists, political economists, and sociologists would pick you up on. Even Samuelson had more to say about Marx than to call him intellectually worthless - a "minor post-Ricardian" (and despite that fact engaging in a debate with Marxian economists in very public publications). I supposed that if a vague criticism of Hardt and Negri is your justification for dismissing the school of thought they draw from (in, it should be mentioned, very controversial ways), you must not be able to say much about what most experts think of when they hear "Marxism": Capital, V.I. Lenin, Dobb/Meek/Sweezy, Postone, etc. Put it this way: every philosopher who has seriously engaged with Marx critically has not had the hubris to call Marxism "intellectually worthless" - flawed, logically inconsistent, immoral, convoluted, unnecessary, whatever, sure - but not worthless as a result of "sheer obscurity and bullshitting". The only part of Marx that has been called needlessly obscure (aside from misguided remarks by Pareto) is the Wertform - and Marxists themselves criticize that heavily. Some Marxists (Rational Choice Marxists) would even agree with you, and still hold Marx to be highly relevant and fruitful. Empire seems cherry-picked at best, and a dishonest representative of late 20th c. and 21st c. Marxian literature at worst. If it's all you've read from Marxists, then my apologies - but criticize Hardt and Negri, not the discipline as a whole, which has worked for the past century to create a great many introductory materials, lecture series, video series, companion guides and more. [0] https://www.gwern.net/Mistakes#communism https://www.gwern.net/Mistakes#communism
- nl 7y ago
  >I was referring to your dismissal of Marx's thought on the basis of reading a post-Marxist work, Empire twice and not making any sense of it You are referring to gwern's "dismissal of Marx's thought" in your reply to everybodyknows? I'm confused.