3 ms·

I find that the joy many commenters here have in both denigrating philosophys and at the same time proudly demonstrating no interest in knowing anything about i

I find that the joy many commenters here have in both denigrating philosophys and at the same time proudly demonstrating no interest in knowing anything about it to be one of the more embarrassing things regularly on display.

b112 2y ago
Oh "anything about it" isn't quite valid, now is it. We see gibberish with nonsensical blather thrown in, and zero logical reasoning behind it. It's not a science. If you want to tell me it's akin to astrology, or some other pseudo made up framework, fine. I don't have a problem with fantasy. I have a problem with those telling me it's real. "I took a series of university classes, where we examined the natural laws in The Land, and Thomas Covenant's ring, and derived a measure of predictive weather patterns! I know science!" <-- philosophy
- andybak 2y ago
  I rest my case.
  - b112 2y ago
    Your case was "that made up 'science' is real, and you can't say no because you haven't studied it for years". I don't need to study astrology for years, to know it's nonsense in about 10 minutes. Yet I've hear a lot more philosophical blather than that, and so yes, I have enough data to make a determination. There's an inner logic to tarot cards, books and books on it, but that doesn't make it useful or valuable.
    - Ma8ee 2y ago
      You very clearly illustrate andybak’s point by showing that you just don’t even know what philosophy is.
      - b112 2y ago
        So your argument, is that one must spend years studying nonsense, to have an opinion on its worth? I've already clarified why this is not so. Thus, your main, true disagreement is that you do not agree with my assessment.
        Ma8ee 2y ago
        No, my argument is that you lack even a rudimentary understanding what it is all about. You only need some curiosity and an open mind to get that. I’m certain there are something in Wikipedia that can help.
        b112 2y ago
        I'm sorry my friend, but Wikipedia cannot help philosophy. Nothing can.
        Ma8ee 2y ago
        It’s not philosophy that needs help.
    - djur 2y ago
      Philosophy is not and does not purport to be a 'science'. The fact that philosophers make and discuss propositions that seem incorrect to you does not mean that the field of philosophy is fraudulent or unimportant.
    - tadala 2y ago
      Shocking comment. Do you think the scientific method is inbuilt in our DNA or something? Where do you think it all comes from?
      - b112 2y ago
        You think it comes from philosophy? This is like claiming our democracy comes from God, because he edictorially spoke through ancient kings!
        djur 2y ago
        The term "scientific method" is itself a philosophical term (as is "method" in this context). Read, or even skim, this and notice how many of the important figures listed were philosophers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
    - sethammons 2y ago
      > I don't need to study astrology for years, to know it's nonsense in about 10 minutes. Copernicus deniers didn't need years of study either as their source material said differently. I'm not saying anything either way on philosophy, I'm simply pointing out that your presented logic there is flawed
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
ryukoposting 2y ago
I wouldn't call myself a philosphy expert by any means (love me some Epicurus) but I think the previous commenter is right. As far as philosophical dilemmas go, the answering machine problem is contrived at best. It relies on a pretty obvious mischaracterization of the situation at hand - there isn't a person saying "I am not here" at all, it's a machine playing a recording. With the necessary context, the dilemma becomes a pretty obvious non-dilemma. If you're saying we should be willing to explore our minds through philosophical problems, I agree with you. I just think this particular philosophical problem is pretty lame. Is the conclusion supposed to be that that formal meaning of any particular word is less important than the ability to communicate abstract ideas? That's an interesting notion though I'd argue that notion isn't helped by a half-broken analogy.
- tadala 2y ago
  On the other hand, the other response to OP's comment is a perfect display of what he means. A lot of tech bro hubris/idiocy.
  - ryukoposting 2y ago
    In that case, let me go a step further: although I wouldn't respond the way some other folks have, I get why they would. Many of my most memorable and most intellectually stimulating classes were those that weren't related to my engineering degree. The philosophy classes, though, never even approached "intellectually stimulating" status. I wrote a good 80-100 pages of pseudointellectual drivel about half-baked analogies like the "answering machine paradox," and accrued thousands in debt in the process. Another thing: The great thing about Philosophy is that there are no wrong answers. But, the bad thing about philosophy classes is there are wrong answers. Open-endedness and free thinking don't scale to 150-seat lecture halls, indifferent TAs, and PhD-candidate "professors" doing the bare minimum to get a diploma.
- djur 2y ago
  "Paradox" and "dilemma" and even "problem" don't have as strong a meaning in philosophy as they do in colloquial English. In this context, the claim is essentially that a particular system of analyzing the truth of statements will incorrectly analyze this particular type of statement. The "paradox" is in the system, not in reality. The paper linked offers a solution for modifying one particular system so that it will correctly resolve the paradox. The programming analogy would be that processing a particular type of data will often have hidden pitfalls for the most intuitive approach. It might be easy to avoid those pitfalls by modifying your program, but someone had to notice and document the problem and the workaround.

b112 2y ago

Oh "anything about it" isn't quite valid, now is it. We see gibberish with nonsensical blather thrown in, and zero logical reasoning behind it. It's not a science. If you want to tell me it's akin to astrology, or some other pseudo made up framework, fine. I don't have a problem with fantasy. I have a problem with those telling me it's real. "I took a series of university classes, where we examined the natural laws in The Land, and Thomas Covenant's ring, and derived a measure of predictive weather patterns! I know science!" <-- philosophy

andybak 2y ago
I rest my case.
- b112 2y ago
  Your case was "that made up 'science' is real, and you can't say no because you haven't studied it for years". I don't need to study astrology for years, to know it's nonsense in about 10 minutes. Yet I've hear a lot more philosophical blather than that, and so yes, I have enough data to make a determination. There's an inner logic to tarot cards, books and books on it, but that doesn't make it useful or valuable.
  - Ma8ee 2y ago
    You very clearly illustrate andybak’s point by showing that you just don’t even know what philosophy is.
    - b112 2y ago
      So your argument, is that one must spend years studying nonsense, to have an opinion on its worth? I've already clarified why this is not so. Thus, your main, true disagreement is that you do not agree with my assessment.
      - Ma8ee 2y ago
        No, my argument is that you lack even a rudimentary understanding what it is all about. You only need some curiosity and an open mind to get that. I’m certain there are something in Wikipedia that can help.
        b112 2y ago
        I'm sorry my friend, but Wikipedia cannot help philosophy. Nothing can.
        Ma8ee 2y ago
        It’s not philosophy that needs help.
  - djur 2y ago
    Philosophy is not and does not purport to be a 'science'. The fact that philosophers make and discuss propositions that seem incorrect to you does not mean that the field of philosophy is fraudulent or unimportant.
  - tadala 2y ago
    Shocking comment. Do you think the scientific method is inbuilt in our DNA or something? Where do you think it all comes from?
    - b112 2y ago
      You think it comes from philosophy? This is like claiming our democracy comes from God, because he edictorially spoke through ancient kings!
      - djur 2y ago
        The term "scientific method" is itself a philosophical term (as is "method" in this context). Read, or even skim, this and notice how many of the important figures listed were philosophers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
  - sethammons 2y ago
    > I don't need to study astrology for years, to know it's nonsense in about 10 minutes. Copernicus deniers didn't need years of study either as their source material said differently. I'm not saying anything either way on philosophy, I'm simply pointing out that your presented logic there is flawed
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

ryukoposting 2y ago

I wouldn't call myself a philosphy expert by any means (love me some Epicurus) but I think the previous commenter is right. As far as philosophical dilemmas go, the answering machine problem is contrived at best. It relies on a pretty obvious mischaracterization of the situation at hand - there isn't a person saying "I am not here" at all, it's a machine playing a recording. With the necessary context, the dilemma becomes a pretty obvious non-dilemma. If you're saying we should be willing to explore our minds through philosophical problems, I agree with you. I just think this particular philosophical problem is pretty lame. Is the conclusion supposed to be that that formal meaning of any particular word is less important than the ability to communicate abstract ideas? That's an interesting notion though I'd argue that notion isn't helped by a half-broken analogy.

tadala 2y ago
On the other hand, the other response to OP's comment is a perfect display of what he means. A lot of tech bro hubris/idiocy.
- ryukoposting 2y ago
  In that case, let me go a step further: although I wouldn't respond the way some other folks have, I get why they would. Many of my most memorable and most intellectually stimulating classes were those that weren't related to my engineering degree. The philosophy classes, though, never even approached "intellectually stimulating" status. I wrote a good 80-100 pages of pseudointellectual drivel about half-baked analogies like the "answering machine paradox," and accrued thousands in debt in the process. Another thing: The great thing about Philosophy is that there are no wrong answers. But, the bad thing about philosophy classes is there are wrong answers. Open-endedness and free thinking don't scale to 150-seat lecture halls, indifferent TAs, and PhD-candidate "professors" doing the bare minimum to get a diploma.
djur 2y ago
"Paradox" and "dilemma" and even "problem" don't have as strong a meaning in philosophy as they do in colloquial English. In this context, the claim is essentially that a particular system of analyzing the truth of statements will incorrectly analyze this particular type of statement. The "paradox" is in the system, not in reality. The paper linked offers a solution for modifying one particular system so that it will correctly resolve the paradox. The programming analogy would be that processing a particular type of data will often have hidden pitfalls for the most intuitive approach. It might be easy to avoid those pitfalls by modifying your program, but someone had to notice and document the problem and the workaround.