4 ms·

This sounds horrible, as if philosophy is now some kind of fringe pseudo thing. Quite the contrary, Richard Carrier for one is arguing[1] that what we are doing

This sounds horrible, as if philosophy is now some kind of fringe pseudo thing. Quite the contrary, Richard Carrier for one is arguing[1] that what we are doing is (natural) philosophy and we should call it that (again) (and in fact some university departments have been renamed to contain the word 'philosophy' again). As for the other poster's remark on Thomism, Carrier writes[2]: "Thomism [...] the Medieval Dumbity that consists of purely armchair, and often pseudological, theorizing about natural reality, which ignores the entirety of the sciences and pretends facts and evidence don’t matter—and even don’t exist, contradicting its every conclusion", so not sure how viable that school of thinking is. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lvg4di3sAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lvg4di3sAw [2] https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18356 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18356

stareatgoats 5y ago
Richard Carrier may have a point about Thomism being theoretical, but using invectives like "dumbity" is mostly only helpful to his, by now dwindling, set of adoring new atheists. It doesn't belong in the scientific discourse he aspires (aspired?) to. To be clear, I totally sympathize with the skeptical cause when it comes to rooting out prejudices based on shallow religiosity. I just don't believe there is a place in rational discourse for this type of argumentation that skews towards "bierstube" mockery.
jfengel 5y ago
In a lot of ways philosophy is some kind of fringe pseudo thing, by dint of having been constructed that way. As soon as something isn't fringey and pseudo, they stop calling it philosophy. What's left is a mishmash of unrelated notions: metaphysics, ethics, axiology, and (for some reason) logic. Or whatever other slicing you want to apply; the whole point is that what's left as "philosophy" is specifically the stuff that's not locked down. Except logic, which philosophy clings to, rather than letting it live in the math department, even though geometry and arithmetic (also formerly the domain of philosophy) live there. I agree that we ought to just call it all "philosophy" again, since we all love wisdom. Even the "scientific method" is really just a thing we all do every day, even when we're not practicing "science".

stareatgoats 5y ago

Richard Carrier may have a point about Thomism being theoretical, but using invectives like "dumbity" is mostly only helpful to his, by now dwindling, set of adoring new atheists. It doesn't belong in the scientific discourse he aspires (aspired?) to. To be clear, I totally sympathize with the skeptical cause when it comes to rooting out prejudices based on shallow religiosity. I just don't believe there is a place in rational discourse for this type of argumentation that skews towards "bierstube" mockery.

jfengel 5y ago

In a lot of ways philosophy is some kind of fringe pseudo thing, by dint of having been constructed that way. As soon as something isn't fringey and pseudo, they stop calling it philosophy. What's left is a mishmash of unrelated notions: metaphysics, ethics, axiology, and (for some reason) logic. Or whatever other slicing you want to apply; the whole point is that what's left as "philosophy" is specifically the stuff that's not locked down. Except logic, which philosophy clings to, rather than letting it live in the math department, even though geometry and arithmetic (also formerly the domain of philosophy) live there. I agree that we ought to just call it all "philosophy" again, since we all love wisdom. Even the "scientific method" is really just a thing we all do every day, even when we're not practicing "science".