What's your philosophy?

[Requiem]

Man you're pretty shit at basic reasoning, so don't ever take up philosophy, it would be a total waste of your time.

[Quizalufagus]

Maybe I haven't encountered philosophy yet. What philosophers do is definitely an unproductive waste of time.

Do you consider philosophers' contributions to symbolic logic to be unproductive work? Many (maybe most) of the key advances in symbolic logic since its inception have been made by philosophers doing philosophy. And that work is not only of obvious intellectual merit, but also now has numerous technological applications.

[buttershug]

Productivity, for the most part, is overrated.

And becoming more so.

[Barbarian]

Do you consider philosophers' contributions to symbolic logic to be unproductive work? Many (maybe most) of the key advances in symbolic logic since its inception have been made by philosophers doing philosophy. And that work is not only of obvious intellectual merit, but also now has numerous technological applications.

Even if this was true, which I am not conceding at all, it would still be as sad as some nationalistic bunch demanding respect for being who they are, based solely on the fact that some of their ancestors did significant things in the distant past.

Philosophy was always about things we did not have enough data about. This was useful back then, but now only the fringe domains are up for grabs. All the areas better approached by the scientific method split off from philosophy; the people who developed mathematical logic would today have a Wiki article which started "John Doe III (1946, Baltimore -), philosopher, mathematician, winner of the Tour de France in 196..)...", conveying the meaning that they were mathematicians when they did math, and philosophers when they babbled about multiple realization and suchlike.

The way I see it - and this is admittedly drawn mainly from the behavior of posters in the Philosophy sections of various internet fora, on the basis of the assumption that there's kind of a proportionality relation between science and posters, e.g. Theory of Evolution : posters in the Evolution forum :: Philosophy : posters in the Philosophy forum - philosophy today is nothing but an attempt by people who are not smart enough to be mathematicians to carve out a slice of respect for their allegedly superior intellect.

Maybe I would not be so radical if I ever saw discussion in a Philosophy forum. But all I ever saw there was grandstanding.

[Quizalufagus]

Even if this was true, which I am not conceding at all, it would still be as sad as some nationalistic bunch demanding respect for being who they are, based solely on the fact that some of their ancestors did significant things in the distant past.

But philosophers' contribution to logic is not merely historical. Many philosophers are making significant contributions to symbolic logic today. Many of the most important research programs in modern logic are carried out mainly by people who work for philosophy departments.

Philosophy was always about things we did not have enough data about.

This is a mistaken view IMO. Most philosophical questions are not about data at all.

This was useful back then, but now only the fringe domains are up for grabs. All the areas better approached by the scientific method split off from philosophy; the people who developed mathematical logic would today have a Wiki article which started "John Doe III (1946, Baltimore -), philosopher, mathematician, winner of the Tour de France in 196..)...", conveying the meaning that they were mathematicians when they did math, and philosophers when they babbled about multiple realization and suchlike.

Well, if you look at the Wiki on Saul Kripke (unquestionably one of the most prominent living logicians) he is not listed as a mathematician. He's listed as a philosopher. And his work on logic is not (just) math, it's philosophy and it was intended as philosophy.

Maybe I would not be so radical if I ever saw discussion in a Philosophy forum. But all I ever saw there was grandstanding.

There are tons of discussions of substantive issues in this forum.

[Preno]

But philosophers' contribution to logic is not merely historical. Many philosophers are making significant contributions to symbolic logic today. Many of the most important research programs in modern logic are carried out mainly by people who work for philosophy departments.

No, you don't get it. When they do make significant contributions to logic, they're not doing philosophy, because philosophy by (Barbarian's) definition cannot make significant contributions to anything.

[daap-umop-bnp]

@Barbarian

Utter nonsense.

[buttershug]

Do you consider philosophers' contributions to symbolic logic to be unproductive work? Many (maybe most) of the key advances in symbolic logic since its inception have been made by philosophers doing philosophy. And that work is not only of obvious intellectual merit, but also now has numerous technological applications.

I just did a very quick read but it sounds like Ada Lovelace (for example) benefited from such work.

[Quizalufagus]

No, you don't get it. When they do make significant contributions to logic, they're not doing philosophy, because philosophy by (Barbarian's) definition cannot make significant contributions to anything.

So what you're saying is that no true philosopher is a logician.

[Quizalufagus]

I just did a very quick read but it sounds like Ada Lovelace (for example) benefited from such work.

Well, pretty much the entirety of theoretical computer science is based on symbolic logic, and the seminal researchers in symbolic logic (e.g., Frege, Russell, Whitehead) weren't really doing anything that was mathematically interesting. Sure, their work was about the philosophy of math, but most working mathematicians then (as today) didn't care about it at all. It was philosophy through and through, even if it was also math.

[Autonemesis]

Maybe I would not be so radical if I ever saw discussion in a Philosophy forum. But all I ever saw there was grandstanding.

Because internet forums are where the rubber hits the road in the study of philosophy. If you can't convince the internet that you're doing something worthwhile, what the fuck? amirite?

[Pingu]

No, you don't get it. When they do make significant contributions to logic, they're not doing philosophy, because philosophy by (Barbarian's) definition cannot make significant contributions to anything.

Well, he has a point. Can you give an example of something useful that philosophers do that isn't just as easily called something else (e.g. logic? Computational neuroscience? Ethics? Jurisprudence?)

You probably can, but I'm still not clear myself what philosophy is, as opposed to the various useful things that philosophers do that can go by their own names.

Perhaps that's a philosophical question, and, if so, probably a pointless one.

[Figuer]

Febble, that entire post is just ridiculous.

[Brother Daniel]

(crosspost: a response to Febble, not to figgy)

I dunno.

To a first approximation, all Serious Thought is philosophy.

But to some pieces of philosophy, we've given other names.

Our academic traditions now treat some of these branches of philosophy (e.g. physics) as being somehow "different" from Philosophy Proper, while at the same time treating some other branches of philosophy (e.g. epistemology) as falling Properly under the rubric of Philosophy. This division is rather arbitrary.

I think it's kinda retarded, or at least unwarranted, to assume, as a feature of our arbitrary naming conventions, that the category "Useful Stuff" happens to be a subset of the category "Areas of philosophy that 21st-century people don't normally call 'Philosophy'".

Now someone might object that it isn't a mere assumption, that it's a conclusion. Well, if you can make the argument for it, you're pretty clearly doing philosophy, and reaching a useful conclusion -- which makes the whole position self-defeating.

[Figuer]

Wherefrom arises anti-philosophy?

[Pingu]

(crosspost: a response to Febble, not to figgy)

I dunno.

To a first approximation, all Serious Thought is philosophy.

But to some pieces of philosophy, we've given other names.

Our academic traditions now treat some of these branches of philosophy (e.g. physics) as being somehow "different" from Philosophy Proper, while at the same time treating some other branches of philosophy (e.g. epistemology) as falling Properly under the rubric of Philosophy. This division is rather arbitrary.

I think it's kinda retarded, or at least unwarranted, to assume, as a feature of our arbitrary naming conventions, that the category "Useful Stuff" happens to be a subset of the category "Areas of philosophy that 21st-century people don't normally call 'Philosophy'".

Now someone might object that it isn't a mere assumption, that it's a conclusion. Well, if you can make the argument for it, you're pretty clearly doing philosophy, and reaching a useful conclusion -- which makes the whole position self-defeating.

OK. I don't have any particular animus towards philosophy (and Dennett is supposed to be a philosopher, and he sort of changed my life), it's just that so often what passes for philosophy appears to me to be junk, and what doesn't often goes by a different name.

Which I find disappointing, really - as a teenager, at one time I was really keen to study philosophy at uni. I think I'm glad I didn't.

[Pingu]

Febble, that entire post is just ridiculous.

Yeah. But I think I can see barbarian's point, and if so, I still agree with it.

[No Robots]

Wherefrom arises anti-philosophy?

It is the philistine's hatred of things he cannot understand, of people whom he suspects of putting on airs. Ultimately, it is an attempt to crush the spirit in oneself and in others.

[Requiem]

Well, he has a point. Can you give an example of something useful that philosophers do that isn't just as easily called something else (e.g. logic? Computational neuroscience? Ethics? Jurisprudence?)

Oh febble what the fuck?
Name something scientists do which isn't just as easily called physics or neurology or anthropology.

You probably can, but I'm still not clear myself what philosophy is, as opposed to the various useful things that philosophers do that can go by their own names.

Perhaps that's a philosophical question, and, if so, probably a pointless one.

That's a strange new kinda nominalism you got there babe.

[Barbarian]

No, you don't get it. When they do make significant contributions to logic, they're not doing philosophy, because philosophy by (Barbarian's) definition cannot make significant contributions to anything.

That's a bit of a paraphrase, I'd say. But yes, philosophy is always what remains when you have stripped off the useful bits, because the useful bits are always something else, such as physics, or math, or logic. When you don't have data, or don't have a quantitative theory to help you make sense of the data, only then are you reduced to philosophizing, which by the very virtue of this fact is useless until new advancements are made via some lucky event. Philosophy gave us the four elements and the immovable mover, and similarly intelligent stuff is surely being proposed today (free will, strong emergence, multiple realization, just to name my hobby horses - I'm sure there are more). If someone who was classified as a philosopher by his contemporaries was making advancements, say, on the laws of gravity, he was doing physics, not philosophy, whether he knew it or not, and whether the discipline existed as a separate branch of science or not.

[Requiem]

And by what philosophy is "data" the key element?

[Per Ahlberg]

That's a bit of a paraphrase, I'd say. But yes, philosophy is always what remains when you have stripped off the useful bits, because the useful bits are always something else, such as physics, or math, or logic. When you don't have data, or don't have a quantitative theory to help you make sense of the data, only then are you reduced to philosophizing, which by the very virtue of this fact is useless until new advancements are made via some lucky event. Philosophy gave us the four elements and the immovable mover, and similarly intelligent stuff is surely being proposed today (free will, strong emergence, multiple realization, just to name my hobby horses - I'm sure there are more). If someone who was classified as a philosopher by his contemporaries was making advancements, say, on the laws of gravity, he was doing physics, not philosophy, whether he knew it or not, and whether the discipline existed as a separate branch of science or not.

No True Scotsman Fallacy. If it's useful it isn't real philosophy.

[Requiem]

You'd have to study some weird subject of no name to know that!

[Barbarian]

Because internet forums are where the rubber hits the road in the study of philosophy. If you can't convince the internet that you're doing something worthwhile, what the fuck? amirite?

In my experience posters in Philosophy fora are consistently less interested in discussion and more interested in status games than posters in Science fora. So choose one:

1) I am unlucky all the time and always come up against assholes. No justification necessary.
2) The posters in Philosophy fora are not as representative of philosophy as, say, posters in Evo/Creation fora are representative of evolutionary biology. Explanation needed for the discrepancy.
3) The posters in Philosophy fora are representative of philosophy. My point exactly.

[No Robots]

If you judge a field by the character of its most vocal proponents, you are asking for trouble. I mean, if you base your impression of cycling on Lance Amstrong....