Disgust With Philosophy
From Huben's Wiki
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I believe philosophical thinking is a necessary tool. But not for any knowledge or wisdom. The only valid use I find for philosophy is to REJECT ideas: most prominently those of philosophers. When students tell me they are interested in philosophy, I want to steer them away from it: what a futile waste of time! | I believe philosophical thinking is a necessary tool. But not for any knowledge or wisdom. The only valid use I find for philosophy is to REJECT ideas: most prominently those of philosophers. When students tell me they are interested in philosophy, I want to steer them away from it: what a futile waste of time! | ||
| + | |||
| + | Most defense of philosophy is a waste because there is no cladistic agreement about what philosophy is. Is it paraphyletic because science has been carved out from philosophy? Is it polyphyletic because philosophy has incorporated mathematics, which has a different origin? Is it simply some ancient grab-bag of subjects without real relationship? Or is it some ghastly organism with commensal origins like the eucaryotic cell? | ||
It is easy to disbelieve in the vast majority of philosophy for the exact same reasons you can disbelieve in the vast majority of religion. | It is easy to disbelieve in the vast majority of philosophy for the exact same reasons you can disbelieve in the vast majority of religion. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
* [http://lesswrong.com/lw/4zs/philosophy_a_diseased_discipline/ Philosophy: A Diseased Discipline] | * [http://lesswrong.com/lw/4zs/philosophy_a_diseased_discipline/ Philosophy: A Diseased Discipline] | ||
* [http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit] | * [http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit] | ||
| + | * [http://www.academia.edu/1636420/Why_Do_Philosophers_Talk_so_Much_and_Read_so_Little_About_the_Stone_Age Why Do Philosophers Talk so Much and Read so Little About the Stone Age? False factual claims in appropriation-based property theory] | ||
Philosopher: "What color is the sky?" <br>Student: "Blue." <br>Philosopher: "Let us then proceed from the fact that the sky is blue to reason thusly...." <br>If only the student would observe that the sky is not always blue: it can be gray on a cloudy day, it can be black at night, and sun, moon, stars, clouds, birds, etc. can all make it different than plain, solid blue. If we say the sky is blue, that is not a fact: it is a vague observation or generalization, ignoring the many exceptions, ignoring the scientific explanation of scattering of sunlight and privileging daytime over nighttime conditions. It is not a valid premise that philosophy can be built upon. Most philosophy actually starts with such invalid premises, and it is not too difficult to spot them. | Philosopher: "What color is the sky?" <br>Student: "Blue." <br>Philosopher: "Let us then proceed from the fact that the sky is blue to reason thusly...." <br>If only the student would observe that the sky is not always blue: it can be gray on a cloudy day, it can be black at night, and sun, moon, stars, clouds, birds, etc. can all make it different than plain, solid blue. If we say the sky is blue, that is not a fact: it is a vague observation or generalization, ignoring the many exceptions, ignoring the scientific explanation of scattering of sunlight and privileging daytime over nighttime conditions. It is not a valid premise that philosophy can be built upon. Most philosophy actually starts with such invalid premises, and it is not too difficult to spot them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you must study philosophy, I recommend Daniel Dennet as the philosopher I would criticize least. | ||
