11 ms·

The argument is sometimes made that philosophy is the mother of all other academic traditions - once a philosophical idea reaches a sufficient level of promise

by b450 3y ago

The argument is sometimes made that philosophy is the mother of all other academic traditions - once a philosophical idea reaches a sufficient level of promise or maturity, it spins off into its own discipline, as in the speciation of "natural philosophy" into specialized hard sciences. One might even point to psychology (or even more contentiously and partially, computer science) as a 20th century offshoots of philosophy. That story seems excessively tidy and flattering, and in any case, its pessimistic corrolary is that most of today's philosophy is a junk drawer of dead-end intellectual projects that never yielded anything useful. The shoe certainly seems to fit most philosophical sub-disciplines, like metaphysics and ethics. Anyway, the article is a fairly (though maybe inevitably) partisan read on the crisis of philosophy. The author pretty casually dismisses some views which are pretty popular among philosophers - examples include the idea that philosophical theories are rival, and can be disproven; and the view that philosophy is supposed to be therapeutic (the rejection of this view is especially surprising given that it was pretty much universal among the archetype philosophers, the Ancient Greeks). The author appears to favor the view that the point of philosophy is to "articulate cultural self-understanding" (or, "[promoting] cultural self-consciousness"). Seems reasonable enough I guess, but I'm not sure what it means.

simbolit 3y ago
> today's philosophy is a junk drawer of dead-end intellectual projects that never yielded anything useful I hold multiple degrees in philosophy and this is a correct description (for >95% of what happens in academic philosophy).
- jfengel 3y ago
  And that's OK. It's not expensive, and it's useful to have a place for off-the-wall notions that probably won't pay off. It's always going to be contentious, because even that small pot of money will attract many different grasping hands. But it seems a worthwhile tradeoff, Just In Case. At least as much as, say, the more abstruse areas of theoretical physics and mathematics.
  - djoldman 3y ago
    What's an example of a philosophical notion that did pay off?
    - 5040 3y ago
      The number 0?
      - dventimi 3y ago
        Indian astronomers and mathematicians have a stronger claim to that invention than anyone recognizable as a classical European philosopher. I rate this claim as "false."
        5040 3y ago
        I didn't realize we were limiting ourselves to Western philosophy. Also, many mathematicians and astronomers have been philosophers--more so in elder days.
        dventimi 3y ago
        Every philosopher mentioned in the original article is Western, so I propose that we do limit ourselves Western philosophy, but if you want to argue in favor of a different proposal then I'd love to hear your reasoning. Also, any philosopher who was also a mathematician and astronomer could have his or her contributions assigned to "mathematics" or "astronomy" which these days are whole other departments from philosophy, in whole other colleges. In that case, "philosophy" remains in the position of not having much to show for itself.
    - JonChesterfield 3y ago
      Physics
      - dventimi 3y ago
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  When you look for knowledge, you aim for the best, not for the average. Also science has crackpots too, they are just underfunded.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    Whereas in philosophy, ALL the crackpots are overfunded.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> The shoe certainly seems to fit most philosophical sub-disciplines, like metaphysics and ethics. But everyone asks questions from metaphysics. "Who am I?" "What is reality?" Everyone asks those questions, and everyone develops answers. (If you're claiming that the conclusions of philosophy on the topic are part of the junk drawer, I'm not necessarily going to argue. But the field itself is really relevant.) And (almost) everyone asks questions from ethics. "What is the right thing to do? How do I tell? What is moral, and what is immoral?" (I say "almost" because some sociopath types may not in fact ask such questions, or ask them only as a smokescreen to advance an agenda.) And if you look at the world, we could really use a clear consensus on what is moral and how to tell. Again, though, I'm not saying that philosophy's answers aren't stuck in the junk drawer.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > But everyone asks questions from metaphysics. "Who am I?" What do people even mean by this question? Because I don't think I was ever very concerned about that. > "What is reality?" Everyone asks those questions, and everyone develops answers. I guess I'm a bit of an oddity, because I was never that interested in the "big questions", and over time I developed the view that the answer to the questions most people seem to ask isn't really important or useful, but the useful part can be found in a physics textbook.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > I guess I'm a bit of an oddity, because I was never that interested in the "big questions", and over time I developed the view that the answer to the questions most people seem to ask isn't really important or useful, but the useful part can be found in a physics textbook. Have you any concerns about things like war, climate change, etc? Because physics has been quite useful for bringing these things into our reality, but seems less so for making them go away. Granted, it is extremely easy to dismiss such things with one of the many handy memes our culture has been trained to think in, but dismissing things doesn't make them go way, though it does tend to make it seem like it (which in our culture tends to mean it "has" gone away).
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Just as you must distinguish between philosophers and philosophy professors, you must distinguish between philosophy and academic ersatz. We all know what guides and drives academia. It's not always the love of wisdom (philo + sophis). Why should metaphysics be a dead end? Given the facts of observation, what must be true of reality so that such facts can obtain? Metaphysics is tacit within the facts, and a metaphysical stance is tacit in one's claims. Everyone here would agree (except in some artificial, dishonest, rarefied moment of academic detachment from reality) that something cannot both be and not be the case. We could not possibly reason about reality otherwise. But why should logic take this position? Logic is concerned with correct reasoning, but reasoning is about reality. So the justification for the logical principle of contradiction can only be found in the metaphysical, that is, in the reality (or being) that we are reasoning about. It must be that reality (being) is such that it cannot both be and not be. It is the only way to maintain the faithfulness of reason to the real. Any attempt to undermine this correspondence undermines the very attempt to undermine this correspondence, as you would would no doubt be reasoning to such a conclusion. Thus we have the first methodological principle of first philosophy, that our conclusions cannot undermine the very means by which we reason to those conclusions. We are condemned to reason, so we better do it well as there is no other alternative, other than doing it poorly. This rules out skepticism and relativism off the bat (and incidentally, this is why even academic philosophers generally do not take these positions seriously). And ethics, of course, entails metaphysical propositions like anything else. That these are difficult subjects often executed poorly does not mean they are bullshit as such.
- lmm 3y ago
  I put it to you that most of us did not need a paragraph of ten-dollar words to dismiss skepticism and relativism, and that serious academic study of philosophy puts one at higher, not lower, risk of embracing such nonsense. Metaphysics may not be inherently bullshit, but empirically the study of it seems to be so in practice.
  - paul_funyun 3y ago
    Relativism is much more common among non-philosophers than philosophers.
_yb2s 3y ago
> the view that philosophy is supposed to be therapeutic I think this is what is missing from most modern philosophy, that makes it so easy to dismiss as useless. In Ancient Greece most of the philosophers were strong people, that had personally done great things, or endured incredible hardships with the aid of their philosophy, and these real world tests stood as evidence of its value. People strove to become a Stoic because the people they admired most in life had been guided by it. I think philosophy ideas can and do have the ability to prove their own utility in the real world. To the extent that modern philosophy has mostly failed to do so, is probably because it is either wrong and/or useless, OR is just not developed far enough to get to that point.
- bccdee 3y ago
  > In Ancient Greece most of the philosophers were strong people, that had personally done great things, or endured incredible hardships with the aid of their philosophy, and these real world tests stood as evidence of its value. Are you just describing Stoicism here? The only "strong man" ancient philosopher I can think of is Marcus Aurelius (not Greek, incidentally). Plato's Republic didn't come from his experience as a statesman. Aristotle's Metaphysics wasn't "proven to have utility in the real world." These people were very much "ivory tower" figures.
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    Yes, I am mostly talking about Stoicism, but the older philosophers that the Stoics revered like Socrates were often discussed or admired by Stoics more in the context of their personal lives, rather than their philosophy. Socrates, Xenophon, and Plato were all soldiers or military leaders. Epictetus was a slave that was crippled from abuse. Viktor Frankl and James Stockdale are both fairly modern people that survived extreme hardship using stoic ideas.
    - kbrkbr 3y ago
      That seems to be an argument also for religion. Plenty of people also survived extreme hardship using their beliefs. Not saying there is anything wrong with this thesis, but I want to point out that this is not what philosophy usually thinks of itself, and it may not transfer. The philosophy the helped X may not help Y under similar circumstances.
jfengel 3y ago
I wouldn't say it's pessimistic because philosophy continues to spin off new disciplines. Linguistics and economics were considered subdomains of philosophy a century ago. Sociology is still heavily laden with philosophy. Right now artificial intelligence is informed by things that were called "cognitive science" when they were in the philosophy department. It may be that one day philosophy is reduced to re-treading metaphysics and ethics as insoluble problems. But we're not there yet, so I don't think it can be rightly called pessimistic just now.
cubefox 3y ago
Ethics is far from useless. It has important connections to open issues in society and e.g. birthed the effective altruism movement. Metaphysics is useless similar to any foundational research. Theoretical (as opposed to applied) mathematics is also largely useless. Nobody expects to use transfinite set theory in practice. Or the cosmology of the early universe, for that matter. Or an interpretation of quantum mechanics. A lot of non-foundational research is also useless. Research on the evolutionary origins of the ichthyosaurs. Or the surface properties of Pluto.
- Nasrudith 3y ago
  The problem with Ethics is largely the same as the problem with the church that cost it all moral authority: despite being held up as the source of morality/ethical behavior it fails at actually promoting it. With that failure the open secret is that they are a side-show or distraction from actual power where the decisions, dodgy or otherwise get made. Ethics professor scandals in particular are a case which highlights the problem. While there may be sincere examples the scandal ridden ones are like cynical constitutional law professors: they clearly studied it to try to find loopholes around it instead of to uphold it. Despite that the field of Ethics has vast theoretical potential in one subarea: understanding of incentives, including perverse ones and how to properly craft systems of them. "Alignment" is the buzzword for the latest moral panic about AI. One of the many problems with it aside is that humans sure as hell aren't aligned. See corruption for an example of what bad systems get you.
- dventimi 3y ago
  > Ethics is far from useless. It has important connections to open issues in society and e.g. birthed the effective altruism movement. That's not a great track record. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/sam-bankman-fried-effective-altruism-and-the-question-of-complicity https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/sam-bankman...
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    >The elementary tenet of effective altruism - that privileged Westerners could be doing considerably more good in the world than most of us do Unironically privileged Westerners could be doing considerably more good in the world by protecting their freedoms in their own lives, egoism would be much more effective there.
vivekd 3y ago
I hold the minority position that philosophy is a useful means of getting information about the world around us and it's only cultural factors that happened in the 1700s (movement against rationalism) that makes us blind to it. That's hard to see when we talk about more recently popular philosophical topics like ethics or existentialism. But hacker News also had an interesting discussion recently on Popper and the philosophy of science ( what counts as science). There was another discussion a while back in the philosophy of math - what is math, what if anything separates mathematical knowledge from other types of knowledge. Viewed from this framework, I think most people would agree that philosophy is useful and an important means of ascertaining valuable knowledge.
- kbrkbr 3y ago
  I have a genuine question that seems to fit here. It's bugging me for a long time, so any feedback is very welcome. I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. Because we can do something with it. Like fly to the moon, cure diseases, build nuclear weapons. Philosophy however claims usually to also find knowledge. There are several methods, but none of them seems to have any evidence of working in any other circumstances than everyday heuristics. On the contrary, the lack of convergence in opinion seems to indicate that they do not work well. There are plenty of takes what math "is" philosophically, and there are so many opponents and overcomers of Popper. I agree that philosophy is nice to have, a playground for ideas, a collection of possibilities of systems of concepts. But I fail to see what points to it being a source of knowledge. It's one thing to state "These systems are possible", and another to state "this system is the real one", specifically in ethics.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Yeah, philosophy isn't a means to know more. I would describe it as a means to sharpen your mind to better understand with and process the world.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. In domains where it is suitable/adequate (be mindful of ambiguous, potentially misinformative language when engaged in study and communication, lest other humans pick up the bad habit and humanity becomes confused). >Because we can do something with it. Like fly to the moon, cure diseases, build nuclear weapons. Philosophy can be used to have interesting conversations, at least. >Philosophy however claims usually to also find knowledge. There are several methods, but none of them seems to have any evidence of working in any other circumstances than everyday heuristics. Things are not always what they seem, because seems itself is a heuristic. >On the contrary, the lack of convergence in opinion seems to indicate that they do not work well. It could also suggest that the entirety of reality isn't deterministic like the physical realm (which is mostly only what science studies, and most people have the impression that science studies everything (they even have a Theory of "Everything"!)). >I agree that philosophy is nice to have, a playground for ideas, a collection of possibilities of systems of concepts. But I fail to see what points to it being a source of knowledge. I would say that via philosophy, one could develop a proposition that science uses the planet as its playground. For example: without science, could we have achieved this level of global warming? >It's one thing to state "These systems are possible", and another to state "this system is the real one", specifically in ethics. I've encountered many thousands of people who claim with extreme certainty that science is essentially or even literally the only game in town when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge.
Nasrudith 3y ago
> That story seems excessively tidy and flattering, and in any case, its pessimistic corrolary is that most of today's philosophy is a junk drawer of dead-end intellectual projects that never yielded anything useful. I think it is a matter even worse than being a junk drawer. It seems to be actively opposed to practicality and regards referencing the real world with scorn. That is frankly an ancient form of stupidity that goes back a very long time, to Ancient Greece at the very least. And it continues to today: any time that something becomes practical it gets banned from philosophy and philosophers stop writing on it.
ff00 3y ago
I think distinction should be made between academic tradition of philosophy and personal need/practice of philosophy. My favorite essay on this topic is https://courses.aynrand.org/works/philosophy-who-needs-it/ https://courses.aynrand.org/works/philosophy-who-needs-it/ . It is based on a lecture given by Ayn Rand to the graduating class of West Point Military Academy in March 1974. Some people will be alarmed by the name, Ayn Rand, so I will post few snippets and then you can choose to ignore or read the ~10 minutes essay. The assignment I gave myself for tonight is not to sell you on MY philosophy, but on philosophy as such. The best way to study philosophy is to approach it as one approaches a detective story: follow every trail, clue and implication, in order to discover who is a murderer and who is a hero. The criterion of detection is two questions: Why? and How? If a given tenet seems to be true - why? If another tenet seems to be false - why? and how is it being put over? You will not find all the answers immediately, but you will acquire an invaluable characteristic: the ability to think in terms of essentials. Now some of you might say, as many people do: "Aw, I never think in such abstract terms - I want to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems - what do I need philosophy for?" My answer is: In order to be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems - i.e., in order to be able to live on earth. You might claim - as most people do - that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure - nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey. Some people might answer: "Sure, I've said those things at different times, but I don't have to believe that stuff all of the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today." They got it from Hegel. They might say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: "But can't one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?" They got it from Richard Nixon - who got it from William James.

by b450 3y ago

simbolit 3y ago

> today's philosophy is a junk drawer of dead-end intellectual projects that never yielded anything useful I hold multiple degrees in philosophy and this is a correct description (for >95% of what happens in academic philosophy).

jfengel 3y ago
And that's OK. It's not expensive, and it's useful to have a place for off-the-wall notions that probably won't pay off. It's always going to be contentious, because even that small pot of money will attract many different grasping hands. But it seems a worthwhile tradeoff, Just In Case. At least as much as, say, the more abstruse areas of theoretical physics and mathematics.
- djoldman 3y ago
  What's an example of a philosophical notion that did pay off?
  - 5040 3y ago
    The number 0?
    - dventimi 3y ago
      Indian astronomers and mathematicians have a stronger claim to that invention than anyone recognizable as a classical European philosopher. I rate this claim as "false."
      - 5040 3y ago
        I didn't realize we were limiting ourselves to Western philosophy. Also, many mathematicians and astronomers have been philosophers--more so in elder days.
        dventimi 3y ago
        Every philosopher mentioned in the original article is Western, so I propose that we do limit ourselves Western philosophy, but if you want to argue in favor of a different proposal then I'd love to hear your reasoning. Also, any philosopher who was also a mathematician and astronomer could have his or her contributions assigned to "mathematics" or "astronomy" which these days are whole other departments from philosophy, in whole other colleges. In that case, "philosophy" remains in the position of not having much to show for itself.
  - JonChesterfield 3y ago
    Physics
    - dventimi 3y ago
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
When you look for knowledge, you aim for the best, not for the average. Also science has crackpots too, they are just underfunded.
- dventimi 3y ago
  Whereas in philosophy, ALL the crackpots are overfunded.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

> The shoe certainly seems to fit most philosophical sub-disciplines, like metaphysics and ethics. But everyone asks questions from metaphysics. "Who am I?" "What is reality?" Everyone asks those questions, and everyone develops answers. (If you're claiming that the conclusions of philosophy on the topic are part of the junk drawer, I'm not necessarily going to argue. But the field itself is really relevant.) And (almost) everyone asks questions from ethics. "What is the right thing to do? How do I tell? What is moral, and what is immoral?" (I say "almost" because some sociopath types may not in fact ask such questions, or ask them only as a smokescreen to advance an agenda.) And if you look at the world, we could really use a clear consensus on what is moral and how to tell. Again, though, I'm not saying that philosophy's answers aren't stuck in the junk drawer.

dale_glass 3y ago
> But everyone asks questions from metaphysics. "Who am I?" What do people even mean by this question? Because I don't think I was ever very concerned about that. > "What is reality?" Everyone asks those questions, and everyone develops answers. I guess I'm a bit of an oddity, because I was never that interested in the "big questions", and over time I developed the view that the answer to the questions most people seem to ask isn't really important or useful, but the useful part can be found in a physics textbook.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > I guess I'm a bit of an oddity, because I was never that interested in the "big questions", and over time I developed the view that the answer to the questions most people seem to ask isn't really important or useful, but the useful part can be found in a physics textbook. Have you any concerns about things like war, climate change, etc? Because physics has been quite useful for bringing these things into our reality, but seems less so for making them go away. Granted, it is extremely easy to dismiss such things with one of the many handy memes our culture has been trained to think in, but dismissing things doesn't make them go way, though it does tend to make it seem like it (which in our culture tends to mean it "has" gone away).

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

Just as you must distinguish between philosophers and philosophy professors, you must distinguish between philosophy and academic ersatz. We all know what guides and drives academia. It's not always the love of wisdom (philo + sophis). Why should metaphysics be a dead end? Given the facts of observation, what must be true of reality so that such facts can obtain? Metaphysics is tacit within the facts, and a metaphysical stance is tacit in one's claims. Everyone here would agree (except in some artificial, dishonest, rarefied moment of academic detachment from reality) that something cannot both be and not be the case. We could not possibly reason about reality otherwise. But why should logic take this position? Logic is concerned with correct reasoning, but reasoning is about reality. So the justification for the logical principle of contradiction can only be found in the metaphysical, that is, in the reality (or being) that we are reasoning about. It must be that reality (being) is such that it cannot both be and not be. It is the only way to maintain the faithfulness of reason to the real. Any attempt to undermine this correspondence undermines the very attempt to undermine this correspondence, as you would would no doubt be reasoning to such a conclusion. Thus we have the first methodological principle of first philosophy, that our conclusions cannot undermine the very means by which we reason to those conclusions. We are condemned to reason, so we better do it well as there is no other alternative, other than doing it poorly. This rules out skepticism and relativism off the bat (and incidentally, this is why even academic philosophers generally do not take these positions seriously). And ethics, of course, entails metaphysical propositions like anything else. That these are difficult subjects often executed poorly does not mean they are bullshit as such.

lmm 3y ago
I put it to you that most of us did not need a paragraph of ten-dollar words to dismiss skepticism and relativism, and that serious academic study of philosophy puts one at higher, not lower, risk of embracing such nonsense. Metaphysics may not be inherently bullshit, but empirically the study of it seems to be so in practice.
- paul_funyun 3y ago
  Relativism is much more common among non-philosophers than philosophers.

_yb2s 3y ago

> the view that philosophy is supposed to be therapeutic I think this is what is missing from most modern philosophy, that makes it so easy to dismiss as useless. In Ancient Greece most of the philosophers were strong people, that had personally done great things, or endured incredible hardships with the aid of their philosophy, and these real world tests stood as evidence of its value. People strove to become a Stoic because the people they admired most in life had been guided by it. I think philosophy ideas can and do have the ability to prove their own utility in the real world. To the extent that modern philosophy has mostly failed to do so, is probably because it is either wrong and/or useless, OR is just not developed far enough to get to that point.

bccdee 3y ago
> In Ancient Greece most of the philosophers were strong people, that had personally done great things, or endured incredible hardships with the aid of their philosophy, and these real world tests stood as evidence of its value. Are you just describing Stoicism here? The only "strong man" ancient philosopher I can think of is Marcus Aurelius (not Greek, incidentally). Plato's Republic didn't come from his experience as a statesman. Aristotle's Metaphysics wasn't "proven to have utility in the real world." These people were very much "ivory tower" figures.
- _yb2s 3y ago
  Yes, I am mostly talking about Stoicism, but the older philosophers that the Stoics revered like Socrates were often discussed or admired by Stoics more in the context of their personal lives, rather than their philosophy. Socrates, Xenophon, and Plato were all soldiers or military leaders. Epictetus was a slave that was crippled from abuse. Viktor Frankl and James Stockdale are both fairly modern people that survived extreme hardship using stoic ideas.
  - kbrkbr 3y ago
    That seems to be an argument also for religion. Plenty of people also survived extreme hardship using their beliefs. Not saying there is anything wrong with this thesis, but I want to point out that this is not what philosophy usually thinks of itself, and it may not transfer. The philosophy the helped X may not help Y under similar circumstances.

jfengel 3y ago

I wouldn't say it's pessimistic because philosophy continues to spin off new disciplines. Linguistics and economics were considered subdomains of philosophy a century ago. Sociology is still heavily laden with philosophy. Right now artificial intelligence is informed by things that were called "cognitive science" when they were in the philosophy department. It may be that one day philosophy is reduced to re-treading metaphysics and ethics as insoluble problems. But we're not there yet, so I don't think it can be rightly called pessimistic just now.

cubefox 3y ago

Ethics is far from useless. It has important connections to open issues in society and e.g. birthed the effective altruism movement. Metaphysics is useless similar to any foundational research. Theoretical (as opposed to applied) mathematics is also largely useless. Nobody expects to use transfinite set theory in practice. Or the cosmology of the early universe, for that matter. Or an interpretation of quantum mechanics. A lot of non-foundational research is also useless. Research on the evolutionary origins of the ichthyosaurs. Or the surface properties of Pluto.

Nasrudith 3y ago
The problem with Ethics is largely the same as the problem with the church that cost it all moral authority: despite being held up as the source of morality/ethical behavior it fails at actually promoting it. With that failure the open secret is that they are a side-show or distraction from actual power where the decisions, dodgy or otherwise get made. Ethics professor scandals in particular are a case which highlights the problem. While there may be sincere examples the scandal ridden ones are like cynical constitutional law professors: they clearly studied it to try to find loopholes around it instead of to uphold it. Despite that the field of Ethics has vast theoretical potential in one subarea: understanding of incentives, including perverse ones and how to properly craft systems of them. "Alignment" is the buzzword for the latest moral panic about AI. One of the many problems with it aside is that humans sure as hell aren't aligned. See corruption for an example of what bad systems get you.
dventimi 3y ago
> Ethics is far from useless. It has important connections to open issues in society and e.g. birthed the effective altruism movement. That's not a great track record. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/sam-bankman-fried-effective-altruism-and-the-question-of-complicity https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/sam-bankman...
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  >The elementary tenet of effective altruism - that privileged Westerners could be doing considerably more good in the world than most of us do Unironically privileged Westerners could be doing considerably more good in the world by protecting their freedoms in their own lives, egoism would be much more effective there.

vivekd 3y ago

I hold the minority position that philosophy is a useful means of getting information about the world around us and it's only cultural factors that happened in the 1700s (movement against rationalism) that makes us blind to it. That's hard to see when we talk about more recently popular philosophical topics like ethics or existentialism. But hacker News also had an interesting discussion recently on Popper and the philosophy of science ( what counts as science). There was another discussion a while back in the philosophy of math - what is math, what if anything separates mathematical knowledge from other types of knowledge. Viewed from this framework, I think most people would agree that philosophy is useful and an important means of ascertaining valuable knowledge.

kbrkbr 3y ago
I have a genuine question that seems to fit here. It's bugging me for a long time, so any feedback is very welcome. I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. Because we can do something with it. Like fly to the moon, cure diseases, build nuclear weapons. Philosophy however claims usually to also find knowledge. There are several methods, but none of them seems to have any evidence of working in any other circumstances than everyday heuristics. On the contrary, the lack of convergence in opinion seems to indicate that they do not work well. There are plenty of takes what math "is" philosophically, and there are so many opponents and overcomers of Popper. I agree that philosophy is nice to have, a playground for ideas, a collection of possibilities of systems of concepts. But I fail to see what points to it being a source of knowledge. It's one thing to state "These systems are possible", and another to state "this system is the real one", specifically in ethics.
- vacuity 3y ago
  Yeah, philosophy isn't a means to know more. I would describe it as a means to sharpen your mind to better understand with and process the world.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > I can see that the scientific method works well in producing knowledge. In domains where it is suitable/adequate (be mindful of ambiguous, potentially misinformative language when engaged in study and communication, lest other humans pick up the bad habit and humanity becomes confused). >Because we can do something with it. Like fly to the moon, cure diseases, build nuclear weapons. Philosophy can be used to have interesting conversations, at least. >Philosophy however claims usually to also find knowledge. There are several methods, but none of them seems to have any evidence of working in any other circumstances than everyday heuristics. Things are not always what they seem, because seems itself is a heuristic. >On the contrary, the lack of convergence in opinion seems to indicate that they do not work well. It could also suggest that the entirety of reality isn't deterministic like the physical realm (which is mostly only what science studies, and most people have the impression that science studies everything (they even have a Theory of "Everything"!)). >I agree that philosophy is nice to have, a playground for ideas, a collection of possibilities of systems of concepts. But I fail to see what points to it being a source of knowledge. I would say that via philosophy, one could develop a proposition that science uses the planet as its playground. For example: without science, could we have achieved this level of global warming? >It's one thing to state "These systems are possible", and another to state "this system is the real one", specifically in ethics. I've encountered many thousands of people who claim with extreme certainty that science is essentially or even literally the only game in town when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge.

Nasrudith 3y ago

> That story seems excessively tidy and flattering, and in any case, its pessimistic corrolary is that most of today's philosophy is a junk drawer of dead-end intellectual projects that never yielded anything useful. I think it is a matter even worse than being a junk drawer. It seems to be actively opposed to practicality and regards referencing the real world with scorn. That is frankly an ancient form of stupidity that goes back a very long time, to Ancient Greece at the very least. And it continues to today: any time that something becomes practical it gets banned from philosophy and philosophers stop writing on it.

ff00 3y ago

I think distinction should be made between academic tradition of philosophy and personal need/practice of philosophy. My favorite essay on this topic is https://courses.aynrand.org/works/philosophy-who-needs-it/ https://courses.aynrand.org/works/philosophy-who-needs-it/ . It is based on a lecture given by Ayn Rand to the graduating class of West Point Military Academy in March 1974. Some people will be alarmed by the name, Ayn Rand, so I will post few snippets and then you can choose to ignore or read the ~10 minutes essay. The assignment I gave myself for tonight is not to sell you on MY philosophy, but on philosophy as such. The best way to study philosophy is to approach it as one approaches a detective story: follow every trail, clue and implication, in order to discover who is a murderer and who is a hero. The criterion of detection is two questions: Why? and How? If a given tenet seems to be true - why? If another tenet seems to be false - why? and how is it being put over? You will not find all the answers immediately, but you will acquire an invaluable characteristic: the ability to think in terms of essentials. Now some of you might say, as many people do: "Aw, I never think in such abstract terms - I want to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems - what do I need philosophy for?" My answer is: In order to be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems - i.e., in order to be able to live on earth. You might claim - as most people do - that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure - nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey. Some people might answer: "Sure, I've said those things at different times, but I don't have to believe that stuff all of the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today." They got it from Hegel. They might say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: "But can't one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?" They got it from Richard Nixon - who got it from William James.