3 ms·

> Caring about and understanding the structure of > knowledge is philosophy. I disagree. At least, I expected the sentence to continue differently, because th

> Caring about and understanding the structure of > knowledge is philosophy. I disagree. At least, I expected the sentence to continue differently, because the study of philosophy is to a significant degree concerned with a survey of the historic development of certain traditions of thought, and ideas. But beyond that, it's only rarely about the structure of knowledge. That's predominantly done in information science, informatics, what English call computer science for short. Of cohrse, caring about can be done in both disciplines, but also in any other field, pretty much by the definition of "study". Except, philosophy eventually will do it with blanket terms to the point of being meaningless. Point in case: your comment. Really though, it depends entirely on the philosophy under study.

fmoralesc 6y ago
> the study of philosophy is to a significant degree concerned with a survey of the historic development of certain traditions of thought, and ideas. Have you actually been exposed to any high-level contemporary philosophical research? While it is true that many philosophers do care about the history of ideas, this is quite often done in order to treat various philosophical questions systematically (for many philosophers, it's all about the questions, not about any 'philosophy' that needs to be studied). Besides, for many philosophers there is also some interest to integrate their work with the work of researchers in many other disciplines. If you work in philosophy of language, it would be ridiculous not to try to acquire some working knowledge of linguistics and cognitive science. If you work in epistemology (aka the theory of knowledge), you have to have some knowledge of cognitive science, game theory, computer science, psychology, evolutionary theory, and so on, just to know what other philosophers might be discussing. GP's claim could be parsed in many different ways (what is 'understanding'? what is 'the structure of knowledge'?), and the suggestion that whatever that is is 'predominantly done' in computer science betrays some ignorance (or perhaps some willing obtuseness) about the alternatives. That you think that their claim was meaningless says more about you than about the claim. Why, instead of disagreeing with GP immediately, don't you ask them what they mean? You know, engage with a philosophical thought?
- posterboy 6y ago
  While a monotonic graph can tend to zero the area under the graph can still be infinite. using blanket terms to be filled with meaning is a valid strategy. With that in mind, I didn't specify that OP's claim was meaningless. I just handed back the ball. Provocation is maybe not the best discurs strategy (and provocation is maybe not the most precise term for it), but it worked out well for me. Your response gave me something to think about. Alas, I won't be able to summarize it. I can only sum up that I am not going to indulge in an argument about who and what should be considered "high-level contemporary research". If that is the main concern of your comment, you are just making my point. More over, if philosophy is eventually a blanket term that is continuously redefined, then I tried to take as much out of it as possible by marking CS and maths as a huge contrast, however not disjunct (nor independent, authark) fields, which should leave huge room for interpretation that is topical to this venue, as a counterforce to the popular view that sees all humanities emerging from the tradition of philosophy--conversely: e.g., the meme of all link trials in Wikipedia ending at the philosophy article--equivalently: philosophy subsuming all... which is a grandious claim. High-level in that sense would be philosophy of philosophy, perhaps, for which there is no authority that I'm aware of. It's an interesting topic indeed, but in critique of OP's remark about held believes I was trying to get at something slightly different (hoping that it aligns eventually). Namely that truth is often enough that which doesn't need saying, which is however indistinguishable from void. Everything else is climbing towers of abstractions. I'm a C-Programmer. return
unabst 6y ago
> the study of philosophy is to a significant degree concerned with a survey of the historic development If you surveyed the historic development, you would know that modern computer science is the product of great philosophers who solved what logic is, what information is, and what computation is. And they got it right, because you're looking at it. > Point in case: Your comment. What a rude and incensitive thing to say.
- posterboy 6y ago
  I'm well aware of the Crizis in Foundations and personally I have not found a satisfying solution (pun not intended). Maybe I'm rather criticizing CS for not paying it enough head? No, I'm pretty sure I'm disappointed with philosophy for all the quantum mumbo jumbo--which is just lip service from me, as I'm just not well read in the area, but still, it's leaking into this domain and frequently criticized for it.

fmoralesc 6y ago

> the study of philosophy is to a significant degree concerned with a survey of the historic development of certain traditions of thought, and ideas. Have you actually been exposed to any high-level contemporary philosophical research? While it is true that many philosophers do care about the history of ideas, this is quite often done in order to treat various philosophical questions systematically (for many philosophers, it's all about the questions, not about any 'philosophy' that needs to be studied). Besides, for many philosophers there is also some interest to integrate their work with the work of researchers in many other disciplines. If you work in philosophy of language, it would be ridiculous not to try to acquire some working knowledge of linguistics and cognitive science. If you work in epistemology (aka the theory of knowledge), you have to have some knowledge of cognitive science, game theory, computer science, psychology, evolutionary theory, and so on, just to know what other philosophers might be discussing. GP's claim could be parsed in many different ways (what is 'understanding'? what is 'the structure of knowledge'?), and the suggestion that whatever that is is 'predominantly done' in computer science betrays some ignorance (or perhaps some willing obtuseness) about the alternatives. That you think that their claim was meaningless says more about you than about the claim. Why, instead of disagreeing with GP immediately, don't you ask them what they mean? You know, engage with a philosophical thought?

posterboy 6y ago
While a monotonic graph can tend to zero the area under the graph can still be infinite. using blanket terms to be filled with meaning is a valid strategy. With that in mind, I didn't specify that OP's claim was meaningless. I just handed back the ball. Provocation is maybe not the best discurs strategy (and provocation is maybe not the most precise term for it), but it worked out well for me. Your response gave me something to think about. Alas, I won't be able to summarize it. I can only sum up that I am not going to indulge in an argument about who and what should be considered "high-level contemporary research". If that is the main concern of your comment, you are just making my point. More over, if philosophy is eventually a blanket term that is continuously redefined, then I tried to take as much out of it as possible by marking CS and maths as a huge contrast, however not disjunct (nor independent, authark) fields, which should leave huge room for interpretation that is topical to this venue, as a counterforce to the popular view that sees all humanities emerging from the tradition of philosophy--conversely: e.g., the meme of all link trials in Wikipedia ending at the philosophy article--equivalently: philosophy subsuming all... which is a grandious claim. High-level in that sense would be philosophy of philosophy, perhaps, for which there is no authority that I'm aware of. It's an interesting topic indeed, but in critique of OP's remark about held believes I was trying to get at something slightly different (hoping that it aligns eventually). Namely that truth is often enough that which doesn't need saying, which is however indistinguishable from void. Everything else is climbing towers of abstractions. I'm a C-Programmer. return

unabst 6y ago

> the study of philosophy is to a significant degree concerned with a survey of the historic development If you surveyed the historic development, you would know that modern computer science is the product of great philosophers who solved what logic is, what information is, and what computation is. And they got it right, because you're looking at it. > Point in case: Your comment. What a rude and incensitive thing to say.

posterboy 6y ago
I'm well aware of the Crizis in Foundations and personally I have not found a satisfying solution (pun not intended). Maybe I'm rather criticizing CS for not paying it enough head? No, I'm pretty sure I'm disappointed with philosophy for all the quantum mumbo jumbo--which is just lip service from me, as I'm just not well read in the area, but still, it's leaking into this domain and frequently criticized for it.