3 ms·

I can recommend several. If pg's essays have some amount of appeal to you, you are probably potentially interested in philosophy, here are just a few people who

I can recommend several. If pg's essays have some amount of appeal to you, you are probably potentially interested in philosophy, here are just a few people who have authored works of far greater eloquence, depth, and significance than anything paul graham has ever written: Wittgenstein, Rousseau, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno, Foucault, Ryle, Montaigne, Maggie Nelson, Didion, Bertrand Russel, Jean Paul Sartre, Roland Barthes, Niklas Luhmann, Norbert Wiener, Hienz von Forester, Hans Georg Gadamer, Juergen Habermas, Rebeca Solnit... And these are just the few people that came to mind off the cuff. If I bothered to look I could probably give you more. These tech luminaries act as though no philosophy or significant social analysis or cultural criticism has happened in the west since Plato and Cicero, but it's simply...entirely untrue. There's a wealth of deep, enriching philosophical heritage to explore, and I think these bozos don't engage with it because they are either too lazy (much easier to read translations of the classics) too disingenuous (much easier to base your sophistry on material that is so old as to not be contested) , or too self righteous (they already possess the one truth birthed directly by the divine cells of their brains because they like the lisp programming language and worked at yahoo, so why bother to interact with the thought of others in a serious way?) to bother. Not to mention, they don't dare engage with the highly complex dedicated academic studies of the classics anyway. I doubt pg has done little more than read a modern translation of Cicero. Probably not even Leob, probably Penguin Random House. But hey, those ignorant of the gold vein will happily lop up pewter.

booleandilemma 2y ago
Thanks for that list. I've read about a third of Plato's dialogues (penguin classics, lol) but I'm still at the beginning of my philosophical journey. After I finish Plato I'll start reading the works of modern philosophers. There are many on your list I haven't even heard of. Regarding pg, I think what happens is when people get rich they think that gives them deep philosophical insight into things. It's not just tech people, I think the same thing happened to Ray Dalio, for instance.
BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
You realize that navel-gazing metaphysics and philosophy aren't the same thing, right? Your list contains such a quantity of intellectuals with low substance to verbiage ratio that I hope it was made in jest. Regardless of potential faults in pg's writings, which are indeed more collected thoughts than essays. And I don't even agree with this one, creating should be left to those capable of doing it well (which means at least some degree of perfectionism, developed aesthetic sense and inspiration) and those rarely need external encouragement. The others should cultivate their virtue and maintain an iron will within a steel body, the world (both individuals and as a whole) would certainly benefit much more from this.
- voidhorse 2y ago
  The list I gave is sufficiently broad (incorporating essayist, analytic philosophers, and continental philosophers) that I'm not sure how you could claim it consists of nothing but navel gazers and metaphysicians unless you didn't looks at the list carefully and made assumptions or unless you mean to write off basically all of philosophy (in fact, the basic program of more than one of the authors I mentioned was to demolish traditional metaphysics as bunk philosophy). Bertrand Russel (along with Whitehead) and Wittgenstein are both crucial figures in the resurgence of logical research and the development of modern mathematics. Norbert Wiener, beyond his more philosophical reflections on the integration of machines into society, made significant advances in signal processing. Rousseau is one of the founding figures of modern political thought and the concept of right. Create all the drivel you want, I don't have a problem with that. What I do think, however, is that when you are in a position of influence like pg, you have some amount of responsibility to publish works that are well researched and scientific to the extent that they can be. Scientific in the philosophical context often means work that engages in some meaningful way with tradition, or that at the very least lays out logical argument. I would accept the stance that perhaps pg is just publishing personal musing here, and it is the fault of his audience to take them as seriously as they do, but if that's the case I feel even more strongly that reasonable and responsible people who have studied these traditions should argue against these claims and urge others to desire and seek more.
  - BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
    My fault for not detailing what I meant: pg's article is about the antiquity kind of philosophy answering actually important questions almost anybody alive asks himself like "how should I/one live my/his life?". This puts it in a completely different world than 20th century philosophy which is more often about metaphysics, deconstruction, post-modernism, critical theory, etc... (disclaimer: I found "Fashionable Nonsense" entertaining and have a lot of disdain for most of this). About Russel and Wittgenstein, I obviously wasn't saying anything about their contributions to hard science. Rousseau is indeed one of the more down-to-earth thinkers listed (though his noble savage remains one of the best jokes I've ever read about). I'll be honest with you, I think pg's writings are hard to criticize because I think they're more often "right" than not, at heart. Sure, you can criticize the lazy style that clearly doesn't aspire to be scholarly, or the broad generalizations and hand-waving (in fact, every article gets it), but arguing against the core theses isn't as easy. Though I think this one isn't one of his best days, heh.

booleandilemma 2y ago

Thanks for that list. I've read about a third of Plato's dialogues (penguin classics, lol) but I'm still at the beginning of my philosophical journey. After I finish Plato I'll start reading the works of modern philosophers. There are many on your list I haven't even heard of. Regarding pg, I think what happens is when people get rich they think that gives them deep philosophical insight into things. It's not just tech people, I think the same thing happened to Ray Dalio, for instance.

BoingBoomTschak 2y ago

You realize that navel-gazing metaphysics and philosophy aren't the same thing, right? Your list contains such a quantity of intellectuals with low substance to verbiage ratio that I hope it was made in jest. Regardless of potential faults in pg's writings, which are indeed more collected thoughts than essays. And I don't even agree with this one, creating should be left to those capable of doing it well (which means at least some degree of perfectionism, developed aesthetic sense and inspiration) and those rarely need external encouragement. The others should cultivate their virtue and maintain an iron will within a steel body, the world (both individuals and as a whole) would certainly benefit much more from this.

voidhorse 2y ago
The list I gave is sufficiently broad (incorporating essayist, analytic philosophers, and continental philosophers) that I'm not sure how you could claim it consists of nothing but navel gazers and metaphysicians unless you didn't looks at the list carefully and made assumptions or unless you mean to write off basically all of philosophy (in fact, the basic program of more than one of the authors I mentioned was to demolish traditional metaphysics as bunk philosophy). Bertrand Russel (along with Whitehead) and Wittgenstein are both crucial figures in the resurgence of logical research and the development of modern mathematics. Norbert Wiener, beyond his more philosophical reflections on the integration of machines into society, made significant advances in signal processing. Rousseau is one of the founding figures of modern political thought and the concept of right. Create all the drivel you want, I don't have a problem with that. What I do think, however, is that when you are in a position of influence like pg, you have some amount of responsibility to publish works that are well researched and scientific to the extent that they can be. Scientific in the philosophical context often means work that engages in some meaningful way with tradition, or that at the very least lays out logical argument. I would accept the stance that perhaps pg is just publishing personal musing here, and it is the fault of his audience to take them as seriously as they do, but if that's the case I feel even more strongly that reasonable and responsible people who have studied these traditions should argue against these claims and urge others to desire and seek more.
- BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
  My fault for not detailing what I meant: pg's article is about the antiquity kind of philosophy answering actually important questions almost anybody alive asks himself like "how should I/one live my/his life?". This puts it in a completely different world than 20th century philosophy which is more often about metaphysics, deconstruction, post-modernism, critical theory, etc... (disclaimer: I found "Fashionable Nonsense" entertaining and have a lot of disdain for most of this). About Russel and Wittgenstein, I obviously wasn't saying anything about their contributions to hard science. Rousseau is indeed one of the more down-to-earth thinkers listed (though his noble savage remains one of the best jokes I've ever read about). I'll be honest with you, I think pg's writings are hard to criticize because I think they're more often "right" than not, at heart. Sure, you can criticize the lazy style that clearly doesn't aspire to be scholarly, or the broad generalizations and hand-waving (in fact, every article gets it), but arguing against the core theses isn't as easy. Though I think this one isn't one of his best days, heh.