4 ms·

Bertrand Russell: The Value of Philosophy

15 points by byrneseyeview 19y ago

Jd 19y ago
Russell can be read as a critique of PG. As he says, there is value simply in doing the thought experiments of philosophy even when this does not lead towards any greater knowledge of truth. In theory, this should allow one to greater appreciate what one does NOT know, which could (and, in my view, should) make one more humble. However, part of the problem of philosophy is it occasionally makes truth claims about the nature of its work and designs. This most philosophy profs to teach it as if it is a science, which it is not. If one viewed the ramblings of philosophers as more akin to the musings of the great poets presumably there could be greater appreciation all around. Still, there must be selectivity of some sort. With PG, I also wouldn't advise anyone to read through the collected works of Berkeley. Russell's history unfortunately also isn't great, although, IMHO, it is worth reading.
robg 19y ago
As a philosophy major, what initially geeked me about the brain is that we could begin to understand philosophical problems in the material terms from which they arise. My work has shown that the British Empiricists were right, to a certain extent. Other work has shown that different forms of moralizing - utilitarian and the categorical imperative - use different brain systems. That's the story of philosophy in my eyes - asking questions and postulating answers well before the tools were available to address them. The great fracturing of science into different disciplines reflects how those questions have been addressed as the proper tools have emerged in the history of science. A fun game is thinking about what philosophers would be doing if they had today's shoulders to stand upon. Descartes no doubt would be in robotics. Hume a neuroscientist. Spinoza in computer science. Heidegger wandering the streets. Kant a Republican. Even more fun to think about is whether the structure of their brains led them to their conclusions - less free thought than self-discovery. Sort of like how Picasso is thought to have painted with brain damage. Of course, that historical perspective doesn't address the current state of the field. To me, the modern philosophers are struggling to maintain their "privileged" grip on problem spaces. And that's why I do neuroscience!
- Jd 19y ago
  Can you tell us more about '[your] work' ? Why and how does it validate the British Empiricists?
  - robg 19y ago
    Short, simple story (which is tough for an academic!): Sensory brain systems support perceptual knowledge. That is, when you think about apples you activate regions involved in perceiving taste and color. For cotton, you rely more on tactile areas used during touch. And thinking about the sound of a shotgun activates a sound region. These patterns even seem to explain how you understand television when you're watching the Discovery Channel vs Martha Stewart vs This Old House (work we're preparing for publishing). Your brain appears to simulate the experience as if you were right there participating in it whether you're dealing with a word, picture, or video. Now that "British Empiricist" story only seems to work for perceptual concepts. When things get more abstract, it breaks down (as the Rationalists pointed out). For instance, I would love to figure out how the squishy grey stuff can produce a concept like "infinity". But we're even making centipede steps there. For instance, we have a paper out showing that even for simple facts about animals, the use of language to code knowledge helps to overcome perceptual inadequacies and these facts seem to rely more on the frontal lobe. That all said, we're going to spend a long time refining all of these accounts and none will fully explain the meanderings of the great philosophers. The point is we are making progress (and answering some philosophical problems) and I could spend the rest of my life simply trying to understand how the brain supports our knowledge of the world. For more see: Goldberg, R.F., Perfetti, C.A., Fiez, J.A., Schneider, W. (2007). Selective retrieval of abstract semantic knowledge in the left prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 3790-3798. Goldberg, R.F., Perfetti, C.A., Schneider, W. (2006). Distinct and common cortical activations for multimodal semantic categories. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 214-222. Goldberg, R.F., Perfetti, C.A., Schneider, W. (2006). Perceptual knowledge retrieval activates sensory brain regions. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 4917-4921. If you'd like a .pdf, send me a note at robg AT psych dot upenn dot edu
    - deleted 19y ago
      [deleted]
brlewis 19y ago
If philosophy is to "enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation," how do you explain George W. Bush's relatively high marks for Philosophy 15b? http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp

15 points by byrneseyeview 19y ago

Jd 19y ago

Russell can be read as a critique of PG. As he says, there is value simply in doing the thought experiments of philosophy even when this does not lead towards any greater knowledge of truth. In theory, this should allow one to greater appreciate what one does NOT know, which could (and, in my view, should) make one more humble. However, part of the problem of philosophy is it occasionally makes truth claims about the nature of its work and designs. This most philosophy profs to teach it as if it is a science, which it is not. If one viewed the ramblings of philosophers as more akin to the musings of the great poets presumably there could be greater appreciation all around. Still, there must be selectivity of some sort. With PG, I also wouldn't advise anyone to read through the collected works of Berkeley. Russell's history unfortunately also isn't great, although, IMHO, it is worth reading.

robg 19y ago

As a philosophy major, what initially geeked me about the brain is that we could begin to understand philosophical problems in the material terms from which they arise. My work has shown that the British Empiricists were right, to a certain extent. Other work has shown that different forms of moralizing - utilitarian and the categorical imperative - use different brain systems. That's the story of philosophy in my eyes - asking questions and postulating answers well before the tools were available to address them. The great fracturing of science into different disciplines reflects how those questions have been addressed as the proper tools have emerged in the history of science. A fun game is thinking about what philosophers would be doing if they had today's shoulders to stand upon. Descartes no doubt would be in robotics. Hume a neuroscientist. Spinoza in computer science. Heidegger wandering the streets. Kant a Republican. Even more fun to think about is whether the structure of their brains led them to their conclusions - less free thought than self-discovery. Sort of like how Picasso is thought to have painted with brain damage. Of course, that historical perspective doesn't address the current state of the field. To me, the modern philosophers are struggling to maintain their "privileged" grip on problem spaces. And that's why I do neuroscience!

Jd 19y ago
Can you tell us more about '[your] work' ? Why and how does it validate the British Empiricists?
- robg 19y ago
  Short, simple story (which is tough for an academic!): Sensory brain systems support perceptual knowledge. That is, when you think about apples you activate regions involved in perceiving taste and color. For cotton, you rely more on tactile areas used during touch. And thinking about the sound of a shotgun activates a sound region. These patterns even seem to explain how you understand television when you're watching the Discovery Channel vs Martha Stewart vs This Old House (work we're preparing for publishing). Your brain appears to simulate the experience as if you were right there participating in it whether you're dealing with a word, picture, or video. Now that "British Empiricist" story only seems to work for perceptual concepts. When things get more abstract, it breaks down (as the Rationalists pointed out). For instance, I would love to figure out how the squishy grey stuff can produce a concept like "infinity". But we're even making centipede steps there. For instance, we have a paper out showing that even for simple facts about animals, the use of language to code knowledge helps to overcome perceptual inadequacies and these facts seem to rely more on the frontal lobe. That all said, we're going to spend a long time refining all of these accounts and none will fully explain the meanderings of the great philosophers. The point is we are making progress (and answering some philosophical problems) and I could spend the rest of my life simply trying to understand how the brain supports our knowledge of the world. For more see: Goldberg, R.F., Perfetti, C.A., Fiez, J.A., Schneider, W. (2007). Selective retrieval of abstract semantic knowledge in the left prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 3790-3798. Goldberg, R.F., Perfetti, C.A., Schneider, W. (2006). Distinct and common cortical activations for multimodal semantic categories. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 214-222. Goldberg, R.F., Perfetti, C.A., Schneider, W. (2006). Perceptual knowledge retrieval activates sensory brain regions. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 4917-4921. If you'd like a .pdf, send me a note at robg AT psych dot upenn dot edu
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]

brlewis 19y ago

If philosophy is to "enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation," how do you explain George W. Bush's relatively high marks for Philosophy 15b? http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp