7 ms·

The fact that you got Wittgenstein and Kant confused doesn't give me much faith in the depth of understanding of philosophy that led to your other opinions.

lisper 3y ago
What can I say? I've always been bad with names.
- andybak 3y ago
  OK. Names aside I'm not sure how much you know about Wittgenstein. I'm far from an expert but - he did largely refute the Tractatus later in life but reasons that are probably the opposite of what you're implying. If anything his later works attempts to be less rigorous because he reached the conclusion that attempting rigour in language was deeply flawed. Like I said - I'm no expert and I've never read Wittgenstein first hand - but I do struggle when people casually dismiss the work of thousands of smart, sincere people over thousands of years.
  - lisper 3y ago
    > I'm not sure how much you know about Wittgenstein. Not much. But I don't have to know much to make my case here. All I have to do is point to the Tractatus, which really is manifest nonsense, and point out that publishing this bit of manifest nonsense didn't seem to hurt Wittgenstein's career much. Tractatus is not the only example of this sort of thing, just the one that sticks out in my mind as the most blatant. And this is not to say that Wittgenstein, or philosophy in general, never produced anything of value. But the problem is that to find the value you have to wade through all this horse shit, so it's so much more effort than it needs to be. A stopped clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean there is any value in consulting it to find out what time it is.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      Calling something "manifest nonsense" while not understanding it, or even attempting to understand it, seems like a clear example of "manifest nonsense" to me.
      - lisper 3y ago
        You apparently failed to note this sibling comment: > Wittgenstein himself states that the Tractatus is nonsense in its closing pages. > My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless...
        keiferski 3y ago
        Senseless and nonsense are not the same thing, and if you had read the book, you’d understand this.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - steppi 3y ago
      Wittgenstein himself states that the Tractatus is nonsense in its closing pages. My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) I think you may agree with the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus more than you realize. My understanding is that his main goal at that time was to show that many of the classic problems of metaphysics which plagued philosophers for centuries or more are literally just nonsense. He didn't write the Tractatus to convince regular people though, but to convince academic philosophers of his time. He earned his fame by being somewhat successful. Rather than making a logical argument for his point, I understand his aim as stimulating his audience to think things out for themselves by offering them carefully crafted nonsense that gave a fresh perspective. I think you just have no use for the Tractatus because you're not preoccupied with metaphysical questions.
    - mcguire 3y ago
      You do realize you are doing philosophy at this moment, right?
      - lisper 3y ago
        Sure, but this is just a casual conversation. The problem is not with philosophy per se, the problem is with the academic field, which assigns (IMHO) outsized importance to undersized ideas.
        andybak 3y ago
        Children often ask questions such as "Why is there something rather then nothing?" or "What happened before time?". These questions often cause great mirth for any adult in earshot. You can choose to draw one of two very different conclusions from this statement.
        lisper 3y ago
        Do you think philosophy has produced better answers to these questions than science?
        NateEag 3y ago
        I think his point is that these are important questions which science can't speak to.
        lisper 3y ago
        How do you know it can't? What makes you think that these questions are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry?
        andybak 3y ago
        If science is tackling these questions then it's most likely doing so by making non-falsifiable claims. And at that point it's doing philosophy rather than science. And if you want to disagree with the definition of science that I'm using here then that's OK. But at that point, you're also doing philosophy. And all of this is fine because there's nothing wrong with doing philosophy. It's not just a word for "the stuff I don't like".
- samatman 3y ago
  Well, as Kant put it: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    Underrated joke.
keiferski 3y ago
Lol, yeah. For programmers unfamiliar with philosophy, this is like confusing Lisp with C. (Someone that is familiar with both might be able to make a better analogy here.)
- andybak 3y ago
  You're not far off. I'm tempted to head off to write a "if philosophers were programming languages" post now.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    What the heck, I've got more hacker karma than the Digital Dalai Lama. I'll take -4 for the team and ask the English language for its own interpretation [1]: "In the high-stakes world of technology, where the choice of a programming language can either pave the way to efficiency or lead you into the depths of debugging hell, imagine if programming languages were as enigmatic and complex as the philosophers of yore. Here’s how I envision this quirky universe. Plato: HTML Plato’s ideal forms find their match in HTML. Much like Plato’s theory, where objects in the physical realm are mere shadows of their perfect forms, HTML is but the scaffolding of web content, giving structure but relying on the more material CSS and JavaScript to breathe life into its skeletal outlines. HTML, the philosopher of the web, contemplates the essence of web structure in a cave of its own making, illuminated by the flickering screens of web developers trying to decode the shadows of their CSS frameworks. Aristotle: Python Aristotle, known for his logic and systematic approach to the physical world, would be Python. Just as Aristotle classified flora and fauna, Python organizes data with lists, tuples, and dictionaries, making it ideal for developers who seek clarity and readability. Python’s philosophy is simple yet profound, mirroring Aristotle’s quest for understanding through empirical observation and not-so-metaphysical methods. Descartes: C++ "I think, therefore I am," proclaimed Descartes, and so would any program written in C++. C++, with its complex syntax and powerful capabilities, reflects Descartes’ dualism. It can create almost metaphysical experiences in virtual realities but can also cause existential crises with its pointers and memory leaks, leading programmers to doubt everything, especially their choice of language. Nietzsche: Assembly Nietzsche, the philosopher of power, will to manifest, and the übermensch, resonates with Assembly language. Not for the faint-hearted, Assembly is for those who dare to manipulate the very fabric of hardware. Like Nietzsche’s writing, Assembly is tough to decipher, powerful in its capacity, and not commonly understood by the masses, often leaving one to ponder in solitude about the eternal recurrence of debugging sessions. Kant: Java Kant, who was all about rules and categorical imperatives, fits perfectly with Java. Java’s platform-independent mantra—write once, run anywhere—is a stern dictate akin to Kant’s moral imperatives. Both philosopher and language demand strict adherence to their defined structures and frameworks, leaving little room for moral or syntactic error. Sartre: JavaScript Existentialist par excellence, Sartre’s notion of existence precedes essence is the lived reality of every JavaScript framework. Just when you think you understand the essence of the JavaScript ecosystem, a new library or framework pops into existence, challenging the very core of your understanding. Sartre’s philosophy of radical freedom and existential angst mirrors the liberty and chaos of JavaScript’s untyped, loosely structured syntax. Hegel: Haskell Hegel’s dialectical method moves through thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, much like how Haskell approaches problems with its pure functional programming paradigm. It encourages developers to think in terms of transformations of data, often leading to a synthesis of solutions that are as elegant as they are abstract, reflective of Hegel’s complex philosophical constructs. In this whimsical world where philosophers are programming languages, choosing the right one could well depend on whether you prefer the existential dread of debugging Sartre's JavaScript at 3 AM or contemplating the Platonic forms of your HTML content. In either case, the philosophical underpinnings of your chosen language might just lead to as many questions about the nature of reality as lines of code." 1: https://chat.openai.com/share/584f78d7-6a9e-438d-ab87-02cebdfc8b9b https://chat.openai.com/share/584f78d7-6a9e-438d-ab87-02cebd...

lisper 3y ago

What can I say? I've always been bad with names.

andybak 3y ago
OK. Names aside I'm not sure how much you know about Wittgenstein. I'm far from an expert but - he did largely refute the Tractatus later in life but reasons that are probably the opposite of what you're implying. If anything his later works attempts to be less rigorous because he reached the conclusion that attempting rigour in language was deeply flawed. Like I said - I'm no expert and I've never read Wittgenstein first hand - but I do struggle when people casually dismiss the work of thousands of smart, sincere people over thousands of years.
- lisper 3y ago
  > I'm not sure how much you know about Wittgenstein. Not much. But I don't have to know much to make my case here. All I have to do is point to the Tractatus, which really is manifest nonsense, and point out that publishing this bit of manifest nonsense didn't seem to hurt Wittgenstein's career much. Tractatus is not the only example of this sort of thing, just the one that sticks out in my mind as the most blatant. And this is not to say that Wittgenstein, or philosophy in general, never produced anything of value. But the problem is that to find the value you have to wade through all this horse shit, so it's so much more effort than it needs to be. A stopped clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean there is any value in consulting it to find out what time it is.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Calling something "manifest nonsense" while not understanding it, or even attempting to understand it, seems like a clear example of "manifest nonsense" to me.
    - lisper 3y ago
      You apparently failed to note this sibling comment: > Wittgenstein himself states that the Tractatus is nonsense in its closing pages. > My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless...
      - keiferski 3y ago
        Senseless and nonsense are not the same thing, and if you had read the book, you’d understand this.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - steppi 3y ago
    Wittgenstein himself states that the Tractatus is nonsense in its closing pages. My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) I think you may agree with the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus more than you realize. My understanding is that his main goal at that time was to show that many of the classic problems of metaphysics which plagued philosophers for centuries or more are literally just nonsense. He didn't write the Tractatus to convince regular people though, but to convince academic philosophers of his time. He earned his fame by being somewhat successful. Rather than making a logical argument for his point, I understand his aim as stimulating his audience to think things out for themselves by offering them carefully crafted nonsense that gave a fresh perspective. I think you just have no use for the Tractatus because you're not preoccupied with metaphysical questions.
  - mcguire 3y ago
    You do realize you are doing philosophy at this moment, right?
    - lisper 3y ago
      Sure, but this is just a casual conversation. The problem is not with philosophy per se, the problem is with the academic field, which assigns (IMHO) outsized importance to undersized ideas.
      - andybak 3y ago
        Children often ask questions such as "Why is there something rather then nothing?" or "What happened before time?". These questions often cause great mirth for any adult in earshot. You can choose to draw one of two very different conclusions from this statement.
        lisper 3y ago
        Do you think philosophy has produced better answers to these questions than science?
        NateEag 3y ago
        I think his point is that these are important questions which science can't speak to.
        lisper 3y ago
        How do you know it can't? What makes you think that these questions are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry?
        andybak 3y ago
        If science is tackling these questions then it's most likely doing so by making non-falsifiable claims. And at that point it's doing philosophy rather than science. And if you want to disagree with the definition of science that I'm using here then that's OK. But at that point, you're also doing philosophy. And all of this is fine because there's nothing wrong with doing philosophy. It's not just a word for "the stuff I don't like".
samatman 3y ago
Well, as Kant put it: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  Underrated joke.

keiferski 3y ago

Lol, yeah. For programmers unfamiliar with philosophy, this is like confusing Lisp with C. (Someone that is familiar with both might be able to make a better analogy here.)

andybak 3y ago
You're not far off. I'm tempted to head off to write a "if philosophers were programming languages" post now.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  What the heck, I've got more hacker karma than the Digital Dalai Lama. I'll take -4 for the team and ask the English language for its own interpretation [1]: "In the high-stakes world of technology, where the choice of a programming language can either pave the way to efficiency or lead you into the depths of debugging hell, imagine if programming languages were as enigmatic and complex as the philosophers of yore. Here’s how I envision this quirky universe. Plato: HTML Plato’s ideal forms find their match in HTML. Much like Plato’s theory, where objects in the physical realm are mere shadows of their perfect forms, HTML is but the scaffolding of web content, giving structure but relying on the more material CSS and JavaScript to breathe life into its skeletal outlines. HTML, the philosopher of the web, contemplates the essence of web structure in a cave of its own making, illuminated by the flickering screens of web developers trying to decode the shadows of their CSS frameworks. Aristotle: Python Aristotle, known for his logic and systematic approach to the physical world, would be Python. Just as Aristotle classified flora and fauna, Python organizes data with lists, tuples, and dictionaries, making it ideal for developers who seek clarity and readability. Python’s philosophy is simple yet profound, mirroring Aristotle’s quest for understanding through empirical observation and not-so-metaphysical methods. Descartes: C++ "I think, therefore I am," proclaimed Descartes, and so would any program written in C++. C++, with its complex syntax and powerful capabilities, reflects Descartes’ dualism. It can create almost metaphysical experiences in virtual realities but can also cause existential crises with its pointers and memory leaks, leading programmers to doubt everything, especially their choice of language. Nietzsche: Assembly Nietzsche, the philosopher of power, will to manifest, and the übermensch, resonates with Assembly language. Not for the faint-hearted, Assembly is for those who dare to manipulate the very fabric of hardware. Like Nietzsche’s writing, Assembly is tough to decipher, powerful in its capacity, and not commonly understood by the masses, often leaving one to ponder in solitude about the eternal recurrence of debugging sessions. Kant: Java Kant, who was all about rules and categorical imperatives, fits perfectly with Java. Java’s platform-independent mantra—write once, run anywhere—is a stern dictate akin to Kant’s moral imperatives. Both philosopher and language demand strict adherence to their defined structures and frameworks, leaving little room for moral or syntactic error. Sartre: JavaScript Existentialist par excellence, Sartre’s notion of existence precedes essence is the lived reality of every JavaScript framework. Just when you think you understand the essence of the JavaScript ecosystem, a new library or framework pops into existence, challenging the very core of your understanding. Sartre’s philosophy of radical freedom and existential angst mirrors the liberty and chaos of JavaScript’s untyped, loosely structured syntax. Hegel: Haskell Hegel’s dialectical method moves through thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, much like how Haskell approaches problems with its pure functional programming paradigm. It encourages developers to think in terms of transformations of data, often leading to a synthesis of solutions that are as elegant as they are abstract, reflective of Hegel’s complex philosophical constructs. In this whimsical world where philosophers are programming languages, choosing the right one could well depend on whether you prefer the existential dread of debugging Sartre's JavaScript at 3 AM or contemplating the Platonic forms of your HTML content. In either case, the philosophical underpinnings of your chosen language might just lead to as many questions about the nature of reality as lines of code." 1: https://chat.openai.com/share/584f78d7-6a9e-438d-ab87-02cebdfc8b9b https://chat.openai.com/share/584f78d7-6a9e-438d-ab87-02cebd...