2 ms·
You seem to be talking about/dismissing philosophy as though it's stuck in its very earliest days, one step away intuition.
by GavinMcG 6y ago
You seem to be talking about/dismissing philosophy as though it's stuck in its very earliest days, one step away intuition.
- bonoboTP 6y agoNo I'm just wondering how much philosophy has drawn from common practical low brow stuff to course-correct and grow in the right direction. What came first, empirical philosophers or the recognition that mundane experiential stuff is useful? I'm just arguing against a sort of waterfall model of philosophers sitting on top of the totem pole and passing down to us what to do. Perhaps that's a straw man though, but some people do seem to think that before Aristotle gave us logic we couldn't follow complex arguments. Indeed, I think it's rather that they formalized already existing argument structures they observed in the agora etc. For sure the abstract tools also turned out to be useful and abstraction is how we got to the moon, not through taller ladders etc. I think it's hard to deny there is a bitter elitist tinge to philosophers that they don't get enough credit, but it's definitely a larger topic than what fits in a comment.
- tremon 6y agoWhat came first, empirical philosophers or the recognition that mundane experiential stuff is useful? What came first, empirical physicists or the recognition that mundane events could be predicted and controlled in a useful way? What came first, meteorologists or the recognition that paying heed to mundane weather patterns could be useful? In essence, yes, you're arguing against a strawman. Every improvement is incremental. How come you're belittling Aristotle and Plato and discarding their contributions, but not similarly discarding Newton, Leibniz or Turing?