4 ms·

This article isn’t terrible, but it does illustrate the pitfalls of writing about a field (philosophy) without being intimately familiar with it. Specifically,

This article isn’t terrible, but it does illustrate the pitfalls of writing about a field (philosophy) without being intimately familiar with it. Specifically, because you assume that [your culture’s version of] a thing is a universal one. Philosophy is a good example, because even “Western Philosophy” has so many fringe and irregular thinkers (Nietzsche, Deleuze, etc.) that trying to nail down how a “philosopher” thinks into one definition is impossible. Deleuze, for example, basically saw philosophy as the creation of concepts. Many people find his ideas confusing or at least unclear. His method was definitely not as described as in the link. Yet I think he’s easily the most interesting philosopher of the last half century and someone whom technologists should read more about. Having said all that, if you’re looking for the clarity of thought mentioned in the link, what you want is analytic philosophy. This is a specific “approach” obsessed with conceptual clarity.

mistermann 5y ago
For analytic philosophy, where should one go, specific philosophers, or...?
- keiferski 5y ago
  Yeah I’d start here, especially the names in the second paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy Also I recommend Blackwell’s Anthology of Analytic Philosophy.
- xenophon 5y ago
  Try Derek Parfit. His book "Reasons and Persons" touches on some fascinating questions (identity) with clear thought experiments that actually reach the level of clarity this article suggests.
  - idolaspecus 5y ago
    I would definitely not say "Reasons and Persons" is clear. It might be precise (I personally don't think so, I think he makes tons of subtle mistakes), but it's at least not clear. It's full of ideas like "rational irrationality" which is at best a poor choice of naming, IMO.
    - yesenadam 5y ago
      > I think he makes tons of subtle mistakes That's true of (at least) all important philosophy books, isn't it?
      - idolaspecus 5y ago
        Without context, sure, but when we're talking specifically about the precision of expression, I don't think so. Some philosophers operate closer to mathematical precision than others, and when those sorts of precision-oriented philosophers screw up their precision, it's a bigger problem. In Reasons and Persons, Parfit jumps through hoops to make his statements precise but ultimately trips all over himself (in my opinion).
- scoofy 5y ago
  I think the previous poster is being a bit heavy handed about the analytic tradition being the jumping off point. You'll get some mileage with some of Bertrand Russell's non-technical stuff, but there are lots of conversations going on that have to do with historical ideas. Typically the direction starts with Descartes, then Hume, then Kant, and after that, there is a real break between continental and analytic traditions. So, jumping into Wittgenstein might be a really bad idea for someone without a background, but who knows. The Philosophical Investigations is a fairly approachable book.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    I think some of the TLP can be approached almost as a poem. I havn't read it in German, but in translation I think the poetic parts are expressive language, organised into stanzas. That's close to poetry. You don't need a background, unless you want to read the middle section, which is close to advanced maths.
    - yesenadam 5y ago
      "the TLP"? <Googles "works of Wittgenstein">. Ohh, the Tractatus. Ok. "You don't need a background" is absurd! Sure, you can physically read the words. But you won't have a clue why he's saying what he's saying, or what he meant by it. And Wittgenstein himself within a few years would've told you it's nonsense and not to go anywhere near it.
Bishizel 5y ago
I fully agree. Philosophy is full of irregular thinkers whose only common trait seems to be the willingness to go into absurd depth about an idea. What is always interesting to me is how you can spend a large amount of study in the subject and still end up finding out about a new philosopher (I’m going to read some Deleuze now.). For me, David Lewis has been the most interesting philosopher in the last 50 years. Maybe Thomas Nagel as well.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Continental (non-analytic) philosophers seem to me to be somewhat like impressionist painters. (Does anyone else see that similarity?) And the absence of this "clarity of thought" focus might be why it feels that way to me.
- btilly 5y ago
  I would be less kind. Scott Aaronson said it well in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FwiPfF8Woe5JrzqEu/philosophy-a-diseased-discipline https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FwiPfF8Woe5JrzqEu/philosophy... One final note: none of the positive or hopeful things that I said about philosophy apply to the postmodern or Continental kinds. As far as I can tell, the latter aren’t really “philosophy” at all, but more like pretentious brands of performance art that fancy themselves politically subversive, even as they cultivate deliberate obscurity and draw mostly on the insights of Hitler and Stalin apologists. I suspect I won’t ruffle too many feathers here at MIRI by saying this. I have less experience of them than Scott Aaronson does. But what I've seen has not suggested that he is in any way mistaken.
  - becquerel 5y ago
    I've yet to see a claim of obscurantism leveled against a post-structuralist that I felt had any serious weight. They're mostly just awful prose writers (and even worse, French). Glibly casting off an entire intellectual tradition as a case of the emperor having no clothes is, to me, a really tragic dismissal of an electrifying body of ideas. For anyone who's been put off by the language of continental philosophy, I'd recommend Peter Barry's book called Beginning Theory. It's written in very clear English and gives concrete examples of the terms you usually just hear bandied about (deconstruction, semiotics, whatever).
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > I've yet to see a claim of obscurantism leveled against a post-structuralist that I felt had any serious weight. I've yet to see a claim made by a post-structuralist that I felt had any serious weight. The awful prose just makes it worse.
SavantIdiot 5y ago
Absolutely, the second paragraph: "On the weekends, he’d take computers apart and put them back together, so he could understand how they work. He rarely reconstructed them in the same way he dismantled them, though. For the joy of play and the pursuit of efficiency gains, he searched for new ways to reconfigure the machines. Every now and then, he’d find a performance improvement that even the designers didn’t consider." I guess this sounds impressive to some people, but to someone in the field it is absolute nonsense. And it sets the stage for the rest of the article. Here he gets all gatekeepy: "Charlie Munger calls this the difference between “real knowledge” and “chauffeur knowledge.” " Ugh. It just goes on: "The alternative is Quantum Thinking, which is holding multiple contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. " Aaaaand I'm done. This type of writing is better suited to the self-congratulatory content over on Quillette.
LudwigNagasena 5y ago
> This article isn’t terrible I totally disagree with this statement, the article looks like something from a cheap business webinar. He talks about Planck, Chomsky, Charlie Munger, Joseph Henrich and even talks about something cringely named “Quantum Thinking” yet he fails to mention a single philosopher born after 400BCE and only makes platitudinous references to Plato and Socrates.

mistermann 5y ago

For analytic philosophy, where should one go, specific philosophers, or...?

keiferski 5y ago
Yeah I’d start here, especially the names in the second paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy Also I recommend Blackwell’s Anthology of Analytic Philosophy.
xenophon 5y ago
Try Derek Parfit. His book "Reasons and Persons" touches on some fascinating questions (identity) with clear thought experiments that actually reach the level of clarity this article suggests.
- idolaspecus 5y ago
  I would definitely not say "Reasons and Persons" is clear. It might be precise (I personally don't think so, I think he makes tons of subtle mistakes), but it's at least not clear. It's full of ideas like "rational irrationality" which is at best a poor choice of naming, IMO.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    > I think he makes tons of subtle mistakes That's true of (at least) all important philosophy books, isn't it?
    - idolaspecus 5y ago
      Without context, sure, but when we're talking specifically about the precision of expression, I don't think so. Some philosophers operate closer to mathematical precision than others, and when those sorts of precision-oriented philosophers screw up their precision, it's a bigger problem. In Reasons and Persons, Parfit jumps through hoops to make his statements precise but ultimately trips all over himself (in my opinion).
scoofy 5y ago
I think the previous poster is being a bit heavy handed about the analytic tradition being the jumping off point. You'll get some mileage with some of Bertrand Russell's non-technical stuff, but there are lots of conversations going on that have to do with historical ideas. Typically the direction starts with Descartes, then Hume, then Kant, and after that, there is a real break between continental and analytic traditions. So, jumping into Wittgenstein might be a really bad idea for someone without a background, but who knows. The Philosophical Investigations is a fairly approachable book.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I think some of the TLP can be approached almost as a poem. I havn't read it in German, but in translation I think the poetic parts are expressive language, organised into stanzas. That's close to poetry. You don't need a background, unless you want to read the middle section, which is close to advanced maths.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    "the TLP"? <Googles "works of Wittgenstein">. Ohh, the Tractatus. Ok. "You don't need a background" is absurd! Sure, you can physically read the words. But you won't have a clue why he's saying what he's saying, or what he meant by it. And Wittgenstein himself within a few years would've told you it's nonsense and not to go anywhere near it.

Bishizel 5y ago

I fully agree. Philosophy is full of irregular thinkers whose only common trait seems to be the willingness to go into absurd depth about an idea. What is always interesting to me is how you can spend a large amount of study in the subject and still end up finding out about a new philosopher (I’m going to read some Deleuze now.). For me, David Lewis has been the most interesting philosopher in the last 50 years. Maybe Thomas Nagel as well.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Continental (non-analytic) philosophers seem to me to be somewhat like impressionist painters. (Does anyone else see that similarity?) And the absence of this "clarity of thought" focus might be why it feels that way to me.

btilly 5y ago
I would be less kind. Scott Aaronson said it well in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FwiPfF8Woe5JrzqEu/philosophy-a-diseased-discipline https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FwiPfF8Woe5JrzqEu/philosophy... One final note: none of the positive or hopeful things that I said about philosophy apply to the postmodern or Continental kinds. As far as I can tell, the latter aren’t really “philosophy” at all, but more like pretentious brands of performance art that fancy themselves politically subversive, even as they cultivate deliberate obscurity and draw mostly on the insights of Hitler and Stalin apologists. I suspect I won’t ruffle too many feathers here at MIRI by saying this. I have less experience of them than Scott Aaronson does. But what I've seen has not suggested that he is in any way mistaken.
- becquerel 5y ago
  I've yet to see a claim of obscurantism leveled against a post-structuralist that I felt had any serious weight. They're mostly just awful prose writers (and even worse, French). Glibly casting off an entire intellectual tradition as a case of the emperor having no clothes is, to me, a really tragic dismissal of an electrifying body of ideas. For anyone who's been put off by the language of continental philosophy, I'd recommend Peter Barry's book called Beginning Theory. It's written in very clear English and gives concrete examples of the terms you usually just hear bandied about (deconstruction, semiotics, whatever).
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > I've yet to see a claim of obscurantism leveled against a post-structuralist that I felt had any serious weight. I've yet to see a claim made by a post-structuralist that I felt had any serious weight. The awful prose just makes it worse.

SavantIdiot 5y ago

Absolutely, the second paragraph: "On the weekends, he’d take computers apart and put them back together, so he could understand how they work. He rarely reconstructed them in the same way he dismantled them, though. For the joy of play and the pursuit of efficiency gains, he searched for new ways to reconfigure the machines. Every now and then, he’d find a performance improvement that even the designers didn’t consider." I guess this sounds impressive to some people, but to someone in the field it is absolute nonsense. And it sets the stage for the rest of the article. Here he gets all gatekeepy: "Charlie Munger calls this the difference between “real knowledge” and “chauffeur knowledge.” " Ugh. It just goes on: "The alternative is Quantum Thinking, which is holding multiple contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. " Aaaaand I'm done. This type of writing is better suited to the self-congratulatory content over on Quillette.

LudwigNagasena 5y ago

> This article isn’t terrible I totally disagree with this statement, the article looks like something from a cheap business webinar. He talks about Planck, Chomsky, Charlie Munger, Joseph Henrich and even talks about something cringely named “Quantum Thinking” yet he fails to mention a single philosopher born after 400BCE and only makes platitudinous references to Plato and Socrates.