3 ms·

I would agree on Wittgenstein, but the author clearly has a coder’s sensibility and wanted to stick to the rules. He didn’t really start to impact the broader f

by bbor 2y ago

I would agree on Wittgenstein, but the author clearly has a coder’s sensibility and wanted to stick to the rules. He didn’t really start to impact the broader field sustainably until the 40s and 50s, so I totally understand the urge to see him on the list. I think you might be putting your own goals onto this work, tho: you seem to be trying to think of the best philosophers, whereas this is a more narrow attempt to understand 2024 philosophy and its priorities. Nietzsche is on the line for sure, but I’d say including classical thinkers (namely Hume, Kant, and Hegel) would be less interesting because their dominance is pretty stable at this point. I’m much more interested to see how the fight against Quineanism is going ;) Either way thanks for the insightful comment; will be taking these thoughts into consideration as I try to improve on this. It’s good to see academic philosophy discussed meaningfully on HN!

defrost 2y ago
Speaking of "putting own goals onto this work" The encyclopedia was created in 1995 by Edward N. Zalta, with the explicit aim of providing a dynamic encyclopedia that is updated regularly ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philo... I recall when this first appeared online and how a core "early gang" fleshed out a skeletal framework, eg: the first draft of the Sorites Paradox was belted out in 1997 by Dominic Hyde https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://hpi.uq.edu.au/profile/388/dominic-hyde https://hpi.uq.edu.au/profile/388/dominic-hyde and I can still see today the residual hand of he and his various peers that worked together to build an outline that represents the largely computer literal | math | logical philosphy student of the late 1980s|early 1990's PoV.
gizajob 2y ago
Yes thanks for doing it. It was interesting for me to see. There is a big gulf between analytic philosophy in UK and American universities which this list highlights - at no point did I read anything by Quine at university in England, nor did I need to, yet he’s used at length in the US. Hope the fight gets won.

by bbor 2y ago

defrost 2y ago

Speaking of "putting own goals onto this work" The encyclopedia was created in 1995 by Edward N. Zalta, with the explicit aim of providing a dynamic encyclopedia that is updated regularly ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philo... I recall when this first appeared online and how a core "early gang" fleshed out a skeletal framework, eg: the first draft of the Sorites Paradox was belted out in 1997 by Dominic Hyde https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://hpi.uq.edu.au/profile/388/dominic-hyde https://hpi.uq.edu.au/profile/388/dominic-hyde and I can still see today the residual hand of he and his various peers that worked together to build an outline that represents the largely computer literal | math | logical philosphy student of the late 1980s|early 1990's PoV.

gizajob 2y ago

Yes thanks for doing it. It was interesting for me to see. There is a big gulf between analytic philosophy in UK and American universities which this list highlights - at no point did I read anything by Quine at university in England, nor did I need to, yet he’s used at length in the US. Hope the fight gets won.