10 ms·

> 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

> 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
      Absolutely not
      - hotnfresh 3y ago
        It didn’t pay off?
        dventimi 3y ago
        It's not a philosophical notion.
        jfengel 3y ago
        The book "Physics" was written by Aristotle, who is so much of a philosopher that he's often called "The Philosopher". He's also the author of a book called "Metaphysics", pretty much the quintessential field of philosophy. The entire point of this conversation was that some fields, including physics, get split off from philosophy, leaving behind a mishmash. But many scientific fields absolutely began as aspects of philosophy, and it's only because they're so successful that people deny that.
        Zuider 3y ago
        Aristotle's actual writings are lost. The books attributed to Aristotle are comprised of lecture notes collected by his students, later compiled according to topic, so you get the Ethics, the Politics, the Physics and Metaphysics. They didn't quite know how to name the last book since its contents were so abstract and unrelated to the everyday world, so they simply called it "the book that comes after the Physics," which eventually became known as the Metaphysics. It is worth noting that the title is a specific reference to the book, not to any notion of the subject matter somehow transcending physics. After all, why physics, in particular? In the light of that, it is even more jarring to see the term 'metaphysics' being used to describe spiritualism and new age mysticism.
  - paul_funyun 3y ago
    Human rights. It's a metaphysical spook with no grounding in the natural world, but the idea catching on is a net positive.
    - fsckboy 3y ago
      > Human rights. It's a metaphysical spook with no grounding in the natural world human rights has no grounding anywhere but the natural world And its grounding is quite solid. It's been talked about for many millennia. And for example, saying that slaves or serfs have no rights is itself an acknowledgement of human rights, an indication that it makes sense to consider that humans might be worthy of rights. There isn't really any definition of the word "rights" except that it starts with human rights.
    - dventimi 3y ago
      Consider John Locke. He didn't create the idea of "human rights" any more than any one individual can be solely credited with any accomplishment in history, but I think it's fair to say he contributed a lot to the idea and is suitably emblematic of it. Locke trained as a physician, not as a philosopher. He worked largely as a physician and a bureaucrat. If he was a philosopher, he was an empiricist who wrote more about politics and economics than about metaphysics (to which he was somewhat indisposed). And, he was largely ignored until his writings became useful to American revolutionaries who arguably were again occupied more by the grubby business of politics than by the airy theories of metaphysics. Based on this one example, I would argue that Locke was as much if not more-so a political theorist than he was any kind of metaphysical philosopher and that therefore the claim that human rights is a metaphysical notion rather than a political idea, is weakened.
  - tekla 3y ago
    The entire enlightenment?
    - dventimi 3y ago
      Already this claim fails to withstand scrutiny. I already treated John Lock elsewhere in this thread, so for variety let's consider another crucial figure from the Age of Enlightenment: Francis Bacon. Was Bacon a philosopher? Maybe. But, before we concede that he was, what else was he? He was: a bureaucrat, a politician, an attorney, an architect, a scientist, an author, a political theorist, and a theologian, at least. He read Latin at Trinity, not "philosophy", which can't be identified as a distinct discipline at this time. He rejected Aristotelianism which elsewhere in this thread has been described as "the gold standard" of physics, so ponder that for a second. If "the entire enlightenment" is primarily a PHILOSOPHICAL notion that did pay off, then surely Francis Bacon as one of the most important figures of the Age of Enlightenment was himself PRIMARILY a philosopher, and yet was he? He was many things: a bureaucrat, a politician, an attorney, an architect, a scientist, an author, a political theorist, a theologian, and yes I suppose a philosopher. But being so many things, can we really say that he was primarily a PHILOSOPHER, thus contributing to the claim that the entire enlightenment was primarily a PHILOSOPHICAL notion? Let everyone judge for themselves.
  - fastaguy88 3y ago
    Modern methods of scientific enquiry. Most scientists no longer look to the bible or tea leaves.
    - dventimi 3y ago
      How did you establish that was a philosophical notion?
- dventimi 3y ago
  > It's not expensive. There are evidently ~10k philosophy professors in the US and the average salary is ~100k. That's ~$1 billion. I think college is already an expensive waste but if it has to exist and if those professors are mostly entertaining undergraduates I suppose ~0.004% of GDP to pay camp counselors at a playground that's going to exist anyway, isn't all that expensive. I rate your coment as "mostly true."
  - fastaguy88 3y ago
    I am not particularly knowledgeable about philosophy as a modern discipline, but taking philosophy courses as an undergraduate taught me a lot, particularly about the limits of knowledge and scientific enquiry. I'm happy to argue that there are a lot of courses taught at university that are considerably less useful than philosophy -- but I'm sure there are lawyers (classics and rhetoric) and screen writers (comparative literature) who can point out how those disciplines contribute.
    - dventimi 3y ago
      The trouble is, we have to take your word for it that philosophy taught you a lot that the rest of us find useful, as there's little Independent verification. At least with math, or physics, or engineering, there are some fairly standard means for independent verification (tests, job interviews, work product, etc.)
      - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
        That doesn't look like an independent verification: it's done by humans engrossed in math. If math was verified by someone who doesn't believe in math, that would be independent. But such things don't happen, naturally stuff are verified by people already interested in the topic. If you don't believe in math, you won't bother to verify it.
        dventimi 3y ago
        Do you think non aircraft engineers who fly in airplanes would tend to have their confidence increased, or decreased, if they discovered their airline had hired mechanics without checking their qualifications?
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.

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
    Absolutely not
    - hotnfresh 3y ago
      It didn’t pay off?
      - dventimi 3y ago
        It's not a philosophical notion.
        jfengel 3y ago
        The book "Physics" was written by Aristotle, who is so much of a philosopher that he's often called "The Philosopher". He's also the author of a book called "Metaphysics", pretty much the quintessential field of philosophy. The entire point of this conversation was that some fields, including physics, get split off from philosophy, leaving behind a mishmash. But many scientific fields absolutely began as aspects of philosophy, and it's only because they're so successful that people deny that.
        Zuider 3y ago
        Aristotle's actual writings are lost. The books attributed to Aristotle are comprised of lecture notes collected by his students, later compiled according to topic, so you get the Ethics, the Politics, the Physics and Metaphysics. They didn't quite know how to name the last book since its contents were so abstract and unrelated to the everyday world, so they simply called it "the book that comes after the Physics," which eventually became known as the Metaphysics. It is worth noting that the title is a specific reference to the book, not to any notion of the subject matter somehow transcending physics. After all, why physics, in particular? In the light of that, it is even more jarring to see the term 'metaphysics' being used to describe spiritualism and new age mysticism.
- paul_funyun 3y ago
  Human rights. It's a metaphysical spook with no grounding in the natural world, but the idea catching on is a net positive.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    > Human rights. It's a metaphysical spook with no grounding in the natural world human rights has no grounding anywhere but the natural world And its grounding is quite solid. It's been talked about for many millennia. And for example, saying that slaves or serfs have no rights is itself an acknowledgement of human rights, an indication that it makes sense to consider that humans might be worthy of rights. There isn't really any definition of the word "rights" except that it starts with human rights.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    Consider John Locke. He didn't create the idea of "human rights" any more than any one individual can be solely credited with any accomplishment in history, but I think it's fair to say he contributed a lot to the idea and is suitably emblematic of it. Locke trained as a physician, not as a philosopher. He worked largely as a physician and a bureaucrat. If he was a philosopher, he was an empiricist who wrote more about politics and economics than about metaphysics (to which he was somewhat indisposed). And, he was largely ignored until his writings became useful to American revolutionaries who arguably were again occupied more by the grubby business of politics than by the airy theories of metaphysics. Based on this one example, I would argue that Locke was as much if not more-so a political theorist than he was any kind of metaphysical philosopher and that therefore the claim that human rights is a metaphysical notion rather than a political idea, is weakened.
- tekla 3y ago
  The entire enlightenment?
  - dventimi 3y ago
    Already this claim fails to withstand scrutiny. I already treated John Lock elsewhere in this thread, so for variety let's consider another crucial figure from the Age of Enlightenment: Francis Bacon. Was Bacon a philosopher? Maybe. But, before we concede that he was, what else was he? He was: a bureaucrat, a politician, an attorney, an architect, a scientist, an author, a political theorist, and a theologian, at least. He read Latin at Trinity, not "philosophy", which can't be identified as a distinct discipline at this time. He rejected Aristotelianism which elsewhere in this thread has been described as "the gold standard" of physics, so ponder that for a second. If "the entire enlightenment" is primarily a PHILOSOPHICAL notion that did pay off, then surely Francis Bacon as one of the most important figures of the Age of Enlightenment was himself PRIMARILY a philosopher, and yet was he? He was many things: a bureaucrat, a politician, an attorney, an architect, a scientist, an author, a political theorist, a theologian, and yes I suppose a philosopher. But being so many things, can we really say that he was primarily a PHILOSOPHER, thus contributing to the claim that the entire enlightenment was primarily a PHILOSOPHICAL notion? Let everyone judge for themselves.
- fastaguy88 3y ago
  Modern methods of scientific enquiry. Most scientists no longer look to the bible or tea leaves.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    How did you establish that was a philosophical notion?
dventimi 3y ago
> It's not expensive. There are evidently ~10k philosophy professors in the US and the average salary is ~100k. That's ~$1 billion. I think college is already an expensive waste but if it has to exist and if those professors are mostly entertaining undergraduates I suppose ~0.004% of GDP to pay camp counselors at a playground that's going to exist anyway, isn't all that expensive. I rate your coment as "mostly true."
- fastaguy88 3y ago
  I am not particularly knowledgeable about philosophy as a modern discipline, but taking philosophy courses as an undergraduate taught me a lot, particularly about the limits of knowledge and scientific enquiry. I'm happy to argue that there are a lot of courses taught at university that are considerably less useful than philosophy -- but I'm sure there are lawyers (classics and rhetoric) and screen writers (comparative literature) who can point out how those disciplines contribute.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    The trouble is, we have to take your word for it that philosophy taught you a lot that the rest of us find useful, as there's little Independent verification. At least with math, or physics, or engineering, there are some fairly standard means for independent verification (tests, job interviews, work product, etc.)
    - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      That doesn't look like an independent verification: it's done by humans engrossed in math. If math was verified by someone who doesn't believe in math, that would be independent. But such things don't happen, naturally stuff are verified by people already interested in the topic. If you don't believe in math, you won't bother to verify it.
      - dventimi 3y ago
        Do you think non aircraft engineers who fly in airplanes would tend to have their confidence increased, or decreased, if they discovered their airline had hired mechanics without checking their qualifications?

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.