4 ms·

More accurately, professional philosophers don't have any particular standing to discuss "serious philosophical issues." At any point in the discussion on wheth

More accurately, professional philosophers don't have any particular standing to discuss "serious philosophical issues." At any point in the discussion on whether people have a right to die, or whether it was ok to use tissue from aborted fetuses for stem cell research or whether we need universal health care, has anyone ever asked, "Well, what do the philosophers think?" (I have nothing against philosophers, btw. I have a degree in philosophy.)

bsaul 13y ago
You should live in france.
thenerdfiles 13y ago
"Philosophers" haven't had "serious philosophical issues" with this topic since Spinoza. Heck, even the Stoics. It's theology that has a problem, not philosophy, where theology crafts its ideas, very often, from the architectures of philosophical thought. Outside of a theological context, there isn't much of a debate anyway. Again: the Stoics. We do ask philosophers about "right to die" and "permissibility of stem cell research from humans". Philosophers outline the conditions under which we rationally approach these things — they obviously do not license or themselves permit such behavior. No one asks a philosopher if that philosopher personally thinks some act is okay or not okay... I'm just not sure what to say here. That's not what philosophy is about, but I have a strange feeling that "it's all personal opinion anyway" really motivates this idea that philosophers do not contribute meaningfully to law and morality. They inform ultimately what becomes legislation. Bertrand Russell was all over popular science in the 20th century. So was Bernard Williams. Dworkin. HLA Hart. The countless articles on ethics on JSTOR. All the philosophical journals. Stacks and stacks on anthologies collecting debates on abortion. ExPhi puts current opinion in the context of great thinkers of the history of philosophy, and helps us understand why we have the opinions we do have. We don't ask them to describe the scientific innerworkings of these techniques. We do ask them to explain these things in broader cultural terms, and in that case the Scientist often times plays Philosopher, where that person so too must pick up a great work of Philosophy. Ethics Committees are real things. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it's radically in error and shockingly misleading...
- Natsu 13y ago
  > No one asks a philosopher if that philosopher personally thinks some act is okay or not okay... I've seen counter-examples of this in newspapers, where they have them weigh in with their opinion (on the news pages, not editorial), being quoted as an expert.
  - thenerdfiles 13y ago
    Like how the Daily Show calls its "news correspondants" "experts"? Being an expert on ethics and describing one's stance is more than just opinion. It's a trade. We expect philosophers to have distinguished opinions, opinions they have defended and examined, partly inherited from history of philosophy itself. A philosopher can give its personal opinion, but usually they identify it as such. We do often want to know what the person thinks, in which case we're asking the person, not the philosopher. The person just so happens to talk like they do most of the time.
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  That's not what philosophy is about, but I have a strange feeling that "it's all personal opinion anyway" really motivates this idea that philosophers do not contribute meaningfully to law and morality. A lot of it is American anti-intellectualism. We very strongly object to the idea that the challenges and struggles central to our lives are not unique but have actually been fully considered by others, maybe even centuries prior. That would mean we aren't the author and star of a uniquely great story. Of course, if that person went to Orel Roberts University then we'll gladly listen and believe every dumb thing he has to say.
coldtea 13y ago
>At any point in the discussion on whether people have a right to die, or whether it was ok to use tissue from aborted fetuses for stem cell research or whether we need universal health care, has anyone ever asked, "Well, what do the philosophers think?" Yes, many people. In civilised countries that are not all about "pop culture" and where science is not supposed to be half about marketing stuff to people -- people very much care what philosophers think about those issues. In fact, what people care is what THEY think about those issues (that is, they want to make up their mind). In this context, philosophers are essentially just more devoted thinkers, with a better command of the history of ideas, so people use them as guides. Now, in the US, it's mostly pop culture, low quality op-eds and marketing/advertising driving the popular understanding of such matters. I guess the equivalent would be NYT best-seller non fiction books (still, quite a low standard).
- davorb 13y ago
  > In civilised countries [...] Name one.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    In France, "philosopher" is a very common title for a public intellectual to hold.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    I'll give you several: most Western European countries with "public intellectuals" and a vibrant public discussion, from Italy to France.
twistedpair 13y ago
PhD?
wpietri 13y ago
I sure have. Ethicists are immensely helpful in discussing these topics, especially bioethicists.

bsaul 13y ago

You should live in france.

thenerdfiles 13y ago

"Philosophers" haven't had "serious philosophical issues" with this topic since Spinoza. Heck, even the Stoics. It's theology that has a problem, not philosophy, where theology crafts its ideas, very often, from the architectures of philosophical thought. Outside of a theological context, there isn't much of a debate anyway. Again: the Stoics. We do ask philosophers about "right to die" and "permissibility of stem cell research from humans". Philosophers outline the conditions under which we rationally approach these things — they obviously do not license or themselves permit such behavior. No one asks a philosopher if that philosopher personally thinks some act is okay or not okay... I'm just not sure what to say here. That's not what philosophy is about, but I have a strange feeling that "it's all personal opinion anyway" really motivates this idea that philosophers do not contribute meaningfully to law and morality. They inform ultimately what becomes legislation. Bertrand Russell was all over popular science in the 20th century. So was Bernard Williams. Dworkin. HLA Hart. The countless articles on ethics on JSTOR. All the philosophical journals. Stacks and stacks on anthologies collecting debates on abortion. ExPhi puts current opinion in the context of great thinkers of the history of philosophy, and helps us understand why we have the opinions we do have. We don't ask them to describe the scientific innerworkings of these techniques. We do ask them to explain these things in broader cultural terms, and in that case the Scientist often times plays Philosopher, where that person so too must pick up a great work of Philosophy. Ethics Committees are real things. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it's radically in error and shockingly misleading...

Natsu 13y ago
> No one asks a philosopher if that philosopher personally thinks some act is okay or not okay... I've seen counter-examples of this in newspapers, where they have them weigh in with their opinion (on the news pages, not editorial), being quoted as an expert.
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  Like how the Daily Show calls its "news correspondants" "experts"? Being an expert on ethics and describing one's stance is more than just opinion. It's a trade. We expect philosophers to have distinguished opinions, opinions they have defended and examined, partly inherited from history of philosophy itself. A philosopher can give its personal opinion, but usually they identify it as such. We do often want to know what the person thinks, in which case we're asking the person, not the philosopher. The person just so happens to talk like they do most of the time.
jessedhillon 13y ago
That's not what philosophy is about, but I have a strange feeling that "it's all personal opinion anyway" really motivates this idea that philosophers do not contribute meaningfully to law and morality. A lot of it is American anti-intellectualism. We very strongly object to the idea that the challenges and struggles central to our lives are not unique but have actually been fully considered by others, maybe even centuries prior. That would mean we aren't the author and star of a uniquely great story. Of course, if that person went to Orel Roberts University then we'll gladly listen and believe every dumb thing he has to say.

coldtea 13y ago

>At any point in the discussion on whether people have a right to die, or whether it was ok to use tissue from aborted fetuses for stem cell research or whether we need universal health care, has anyone ever asked, "Well, what do the philosophers think?" Yes, many people. In civilised countries that are not all about "pop culture" and where science is not supposed to be half about marketing stuff to people -- people very much care what philosophers think about those issues. In fact, what people care is what THEY think about those issues (that is, they want to make up their mind). In this context, philosophers are essentially just more devoted thinkers, with a better command of the history of ideas, so people use them as guides. Now, in the US, it's mostly pop culture, low quality op-eds and marketing/advertising driving the popular understanding of such matters. I guess the equivalent would be NYT best-seller non fiction books (still, quite a low standard).

davorb 13y ago
> In civilised countries [...] Name one.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  In France, "philosopher" is a very common title for a public intellectual to hold.
- coldtea 13y ago
  I'll give you several: most Western European countries with "public intellectuals" and a vibrant public discussion, from Italy to France.

twistedpair 13y ago

PhD?

wpietri 13y ago

I sure have. Ethicists are immensely helpful in discussing these topics, especially bioethicists.