4 ms·

How do you believe the results you are getting? What makes such a belief justified? What is the nature of consciousness? What are things beautiful? What makes

How do you believe the results you are getting? What makes such a belief justified? What is the nature of consciousness? What are things beautiful? What makes something ascetically pleasing. Why any of this exists at all? What is the purpose of this existence? Is something ethical? Science can provide answer about consequences of an action but cannot determine if said action is moral or ethical. … science is not a book of facts. It is merely a process for testing a hypothesis. It is not a replacement for philosophy, it is underpinned by philosophy.

lisper 3y ago
Those are all very good questions, and I can't do them justice in an HN comment. But here's a first cut: > How do you believe the results you are getting? What makes such a belief justified? Read David Deutsch "The Fabric of Reality" chapter 7. > What is the nature of consciousness? Read Daniel Dennett, "Consciousness Explained". > What are things beautiful? What makes something ascetically pleasing. Read Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" (and, if you want to get deep into these weeds, "The Extended Phenotype"). > Why any of this exists at all? What makes you think that any of this does exist at all? > What is the purpose of this existence? What makes you think that this existence has a purpose? > Is something ethical? Science can provide answer about consequences of an action but cannot determine if said action is moral or ethical. Read "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod. (The Selfish Gene addresses this as well.) > science is not a book of facts. That's true. > It is merely a process for testing a hypothesis. No, it's not "merely" that. It is a process for producing good explanations that account for observations. That turns out to be tremendously powerful. > It is not a replacement for philosophy, it is underpinned by philosophy. No, it isn't. The existence of philosophy (and philosophers!) can be explained by science.
- zquzra 3y ago
  Daniel Dennett is a philosopher.
  - lisper 3y ago
    He's also a scientist.
    - dventimi 3y ago
      What distinguishes a scientist from a philosopher?
      - lisper 3y ago
        A scientist follows the scientific method, i.e. they advance testable hypotheses and compare their predictions with the data. A philosopher writes deep-sounding but ultimately meaningless drivel like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus
        dventimi 3y ago
        Which comically was criticized by its own author here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations It's not lost on me that Tractatus was warmly received by philosophers, but Investigations got a frostier reception from the same group. I especially enjoyed Russell's snippy quote. Ol Ludwig struck a nerve, did he, Bert?
username332211 3y ago
On your last question ethics in particular is rather interesting. I think it's the field where the decline of philosophy is most obvious. Ethics is supposed to answer real-life questions, like "How do I live a moral life?". Yet philosophical movements, that actually tired to answer such questions, like the stoics and the epicureans are long gone. When you read on the actual writings of contemporary philosophers you'd see impossible moral standards - "It takes 5 dollars to save a starving African child, a night out with friends is the equivalent to abandoning a bus of drowning children to their deaths"[1] It's impossible to live by such philosophy, except for those that think of themselves as some sort of creature of pure evil who cares nothing of right and wrong. Because philosophy is useless as a guidance to life, right and wrong are now decided by the encyclical, the fatwa and the resolutions at the party congress, depending on your religion. [1] https://daily-philosophy.com/peter-singers-drowning-child/ https://daily-philosophy.com/peter-singers-drowning-child/
- whatshisface 3y ago
  Maybe living impassively at the top of a rich world hegemony while children are starving is wrong but we are too used to it to notice.
  - username332211 3y ago
    Ohh, it's not just the rich world that's guilty. Do you think there are no bars in Haiti? Do you think they don't waste stuff on "personal luxuries" in Bangladesh? Do you think they don't waste their time and resources on shopping malls in Ethiopia? They waste resources that could have gone to the malnourished children of their own country! Monsters, the lot of them, just as bad as the rich-worlders. Ethics demands we all live joyless lives of endless toil until every child is fed.
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      Rich people living in third world countries would definitely be included in that especially because rather than some vague "foreign policy" being the causal link for culpability they can often be the corrupt individuals creating the problem themselves. Saying "people who live in penthouses next to Indian slums might be living their life wrong too" is not exactly an expression of disagreement.
dventimi 3y ago
Few scientists try to answer these questions for me. I expect philosophers to have as much humility.
analog31 3y ago
And what are the answers from philosophy? Last I looked, all that philosophy could offer to questions like that was an enumeration of multiple conflicting answers.

lisper 3y ago

Those are all very good questions, and I can't do them justice in an HN comment. But here's a first cut: > How do you believe the results you are getting? What makes such a belief justified? Read David Deutsch "The Fabric of Reality" chapter 7. > What is the nature of consciousness? Read Daniel Dennett, "Consciousness Explained". > What are things beautiful? What makes something ascetically pleasing. Read Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" (and, if you want to get deep into these weeds, "The Extended Phenotype"). > Why any of this exists at all? What makes you think that any of this does exist at all? > What is the purpose of this existence? What makes you think that this existence has a purpose? > Is something ethical? Science can provide answer about consequences of an action but cannot determine if said action is moral or ethical. Read "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod. (The Selfish Gene addresses this as well.) > science is not a book of facts. That's true. > It is merely a process for testing a hypothesis. No, it's not "merely" that. It is a process for producing good explanations that account for observations. That turns out to be tremendously powerful. > It is not a replacement for philosophy, it is underpinned by philosophy. No, it isn't. The existence of philosophy (and philosophers!) can be explained by science.

zquzra 3y ago
Daniel Dennett is a philosopher.
- lisper 3y ago
  He's also a scientist.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    What distinguishes a scientist from a philosopher?
    - lisper 3y ago
      A scientist follows the scientific method, i.e. they advance testable hypotheses and compare their predictions with the data. A philosopher writes deep-sounding but ultimately meaningless drivel like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus
      - dventimi 3y ago
        Which comically was criticized by its own author here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations It's not lost on me that Tractatus was warmly received by philosophers, but Investigations got a frostier reception from the same group. I especially enjoyed Russell's snippy quote. Ol Ludwig struck a nerve, did he, Bert?

username332211 3y ago

On your last question ethics in particular is rather interesting. I think it's the field where the decline of philosophy is most obvious. Ethics is supposed to answer real-life questions, like "How do I live a moral life?". Yet philosophical movements, that actually tired to answer such questions, like the stoics and the epicureans are long gone. When you read on the actual writings of contemporary philosophers you'd see impossible moral standards - "It takes 5 dollars to save a starving African child, a night out with friends is the equivalent to abandoning a bus of drowning children to their deaths"[1] It's impossible to live by such philosophy, except for those that think of themselves as some sort of creature of pure evil who cares nothing of right and wrong. Because philosophy is useless as a guidance to life, right and wrong are now decided by the encyclical, the fatwa and the resolutions at the party congress, depending on your religion. [1] https://daily-philosophy.com/peter-singers-drowning-child/ https://daily-philosophy.com/peter-singers-drowning-child/

whatshisface 3y ago
Maybe living impassively at the top of a rich world hegemony while children are starving is wrong but we are too used to it to notice.
- username332211 3y ago
  Ohh, it's not just the rich world that's guilty. Do you think there are no bars in Haiti? Do you think they don't waste stuff on "personal luxuries" in Bangladesh? Do you think they don't waste their time and resources on shopping malls in Ethiopia? They waste resources that could have gone to the malnourished children of their own country! Monsters, the lot of them, just as bad as the rich-worlders. Ethics demands we all live joyless lives of endless toil until every child is fed.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    Rich people living in third world countries would definitely be included in that especially because rather than some vague "foreign policy" being the causal link for culpability they can often be the corrupt individuals creating the problem themselves. Saying "people who live in penthouses next to Indian slums might be living their life wrong too" is not exactly an expression of disagreement.

dventimi 3y ago

Few scientists try to answer these questions for me. I expect philosophers to have as much humility.

analog31 3y ago

And what are the answers from philosophy? Last I looked, all that philosophy could offer to questions like that was an enumeration of multiple conflicting answers.