4 ms·

Fine, I'll just pick some random books: Feyerabend's Against Method, Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Nietzsche's The Antichrist, Kierkegaard's Fear

Fine, I'll just pick some random books: Feyerabend's Against Method, Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Nietzsche's The Antichrist, Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, Descartes's Meditations, Spinoza's Ethics, Plato's dialogues, I could go on and on. Maybe you don't like all of these, but there are plenty of people who read these for fun, and all of them are taken seriously by philosophers.

lisper 2y ago
> there are plenty of people who read these for fun I really doubt that. I think you'd find it quite challenging to find people who have read these books who do not also enjoy engaging in philosophical debates. But given the effort it would take to test this I think we should just agree to disagree.
- knightoffaith 2y ago
  >who do not also enjoy engaging in philosophical debates. Philosophical debates as in talking with other random people about philosophy? Sure, I'm sure most people who have read these books enjoy that. But that's not doing philosophy---such conversations are usually going to be riddled with errors and just not up to par for academic philosophical discussion. I think we've gone so far down the rabbit hole about why the discipline of philosophy isn't justified that I've nearly forgotten why this current discussion is that relevant. Plenty of people enjoy philosophy, and it's something that humans have been discussing in a rigorous way for thousands of years. Somehow this isn't good enough? I really just don't see why music somehow meets the bar as being enjoyable enough for enough people, but philosophy doesn't. You don't have to be a musician to enjoy musician, and you don't have to be a philosopher to enjoy philosophy. "Oh, well, the people who do enjoy philosophy probably enjoy philosophical debates, so they're basically philosophers!" I mean, isn't this like me saying, "The people who enjoy music probably enjoy humming or singing tunes, so they're basically musicians!" The distinction seems to be getting continually more and more contrived.
  - lisper 2y ago
    > something that humans have been discussing in a rigorous way for thousands of years That's my point: most philosophy is not rigorous. It might have a veneer of rigor but most of it is nonsense because it starts with false premises. Garbage in, garbage out.
    - knightoffaith 2y ago
      I don't think you'll change your mind on that regardless of what I say, so I'll refrain from engaging that particular point. What do you think is the relevant difference between philosophy and music that makes it silly to study the former formally but not the latter?
      - lisper 2y ago
        I don't think it's silly to study either one. What I think is silly is the idea that philosophy is an intellectually rigorous field, that its practitioners generally deserve to be held in high regard, that it makes sense to have departments of philosophy in universities. This was not always true, I think it has become true gradually over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think that science has subsumed philosophy in exactly the same way that chemistry subsumed alchemy and astronomy subsumed astrology.
        knightoffaith 2y ago
        We were originally talking about how many people who weren't philosophers enjoyed philosophy---what happened to that? But whatever, we can set that aside if you'd like, I'm kind of curious to hear - what do you think was lost in the last 100 years ago? I'm a bit surprised to hear that, I would have thought you would say that we got more rather than less rigorous post-Frege. What do you think of philosophers today who specialize in studying the history of philosophy today, or philosophers who specialize in specific periods of pre-20th century philosophy (ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, etc.)? Or specific pre-20th century philosophy? And I have to ask, since you're a big fan of Popper---what do you think about Kuhn and Feyerabend? Quine (particularly the Duhem-Quine thesis)? Post-Popperian philosophy of science in general? All just nonsense? (You don't have to address every question if you'd rather not take the time.)

lisper 2y ago

> there are plenty of people who read these for fun I really doubt that. I think you'd find it quite challenging to find people who have read these books who do not also enjoy engaging in philosophical debates. But given the effort it would take to test this I think we should just agree to disagree.

knightoffaith 2y ago
>who do not also enjoy engaging in philosophical debates. Philosophical debates as in talking with other random people about philosophy? Sure, I'm sure most people who have read these books enjoy that. But that's not doing philosophy---such conversations are usually going to be riddled with errors and just not up to par for academic philosophical discussion. I think we've gone so far down the rabbit hole about why the discipline of philosophy isn't justified that I've nearly forgotten why this current discussion is that relevant. Plenty of people enjoy philosophy, and it's something that humans have been discussing in a rigorous way for thousands of years. Somehow this isn't good enough? I really just don't see why music somehow meets the bar as being enjoyable enough for enough people, but philosophy doesn't. You don't have to be a musician to enjoy musician, and you don't have to be a philosopher to enjoy philosophy. "Oh, well, the people who do enjoy philosophy probably enjoy philosophical debates, so they're basically philosophers!" I mean, isn't this like me saying, "The people who enjoy music probably enjoy humming or singing tunes, so they're basically musicians!" The distinction seems to be getting continually more and more contrived.
- lisper 2y ago
  > something that humans have been discussing in a rigorous way for thousands of years That's my point: most philosophy is not rigorous. It might have a veneer of rigor but most of it is nonsense because it starts with false premises. Garbage in, garbage out.
  - knightoffaith 2y ago
    I don't think you'll change your mind on that regardless of what I say, so I'll refrain from engaging that particular point. What do you think is the relevant difference between philosophy and music that makes it silly to study the former formally but not the latter?
    - lisper 2y ago
      I don't think it's silly to study either one. What I think is silly is the idea that philosophy is an intellectually rigorous field, that its practitioners generally deserve to be held in high regard, that it makes sense to have departments of philosophy in universities. This was not always true, I think it has become true gradually over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think that science has subsumed philosophy in exactly the same way that chemistry subsumed alchemy and astronomy subsumed astrology.
      - knightoffaith 2y ago
        We were originally talking about how many people who weren't philosophers enjoyed philosophy---what happened to that? But whatever, we can set that aside if you'd like, I'm kind of curious to hear - what do you think was lost in the last 100 years ago? I'm a bit surprised to hear that, I would have thought you would say that we got more rather than less rigorous post-Frege. What do you think of philosophers today who specialize in studying the history of philosophy today, or philosophers who specialize in specific periods of pre-20th century philosophy (ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, etc.)? Or specific pre-20th century philosophy? And I have to ask, since you're a big fan of Popper---what do you think about Kuhn and Feyerabend? Quine (particularly the Duhem-Quine thesis)? Post-Popperian philosophy of science in general? All just nonsense? (You don't have to address every question if you'd rather not take the time.)