Your examples of bad philosophy … your reasons why they are bad … aargh! Apparently it’s bad to (1) reason about psychology (2) use the ideas of ancient philosophers (3) argue about definitions (4) mention religion at all. (I’m just guessing that this is the problem with the last item in the list.)
So far as I can see, the only problem you should have with papers 1 and 3 is that they’re not sexy enough to hold your interest. They’re not bursting at the seams with citations of experimental psychology or computational epistemology. Really, you shouldn’t dismiss paper 2 as you do either, but I concede that seeing value in the psychological reflections of antiquity would require unusual broadmindedness. (Paper 4 is just oddball and I won’t try to defend it as a representative of an important and unjustly maligned class of philosophical research.)
Concerning your curriculum for philosophy students, well, such zeal as yours is the basis for the renewal of a subject, but in the end I still think something like Plato and Kant would be a better foundation than Pearl and Kahneman. Causal diagrams and behavioral economics do not touch the why of causation or the how of conscious knowledge. If they were not complemented by something that promoted an awareness of the issues that these formalisms inherently do not answer, then philosophically they would define just another dogma parading itself as truth.
something like Plato and Kant would be a better foundation than Pearl and Kahneman. Causal diagrams and behavioral economics do not touch the why of causation or the how of conscious knowledge.
Please help me compare: what useful things does Plato say about the why of causation, and why should I believe him? How can I use Plato’s knowledge about causality to achieve things in the real world (except for impressing people by quoting him)?
How can I use Plato’s knowledge about causality to achieve things in the real world
Aristotle is a more straightforward example. If you made an effort to understand Aristotle’s four types of causes and ten categories of being—if you critically tried out that worldview for a while, tried to understand your own knowledge and experience in those terms, identified where it works and where it doesn’t, the logic of the part that works and the problem with the part that doesn’t—it would undoubtedly be instructive. Aristotle is such a systematic thinker, you might even fall in love with his system and become a neo-Aristotelian, bringing it up to date and evangelizing its relevance for today’s world.
This seems to be more indicative that if one thinks hard enough about any world view it will seem to be useful and make sense. This is essentially as much of an argument to take Aristotle seriously as C. S. Lewis’s claim that “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” is an argument to take Christianity seriously.
This doesn’t answer the question or even the type of question as phrased by Viliam. The claim isn’t that you can use a systematic approach to make your own thoughts ordered in some fashion, but how to make the claims pay rent.
Beating moistened clay against cold iron has a similar effect. On what basis do you claim Aristotle’s memeload is preferable, beyond it’s ability to make impressions?
Aristotle’s categories and causes are all very familiar concepts, so familiar that people don’t reflect on them. These “memes” are already there, they’re just not organised and criticised. It’s like physics. You can go through life without ever sorting out your ideas about force, energy, momentum… or you can take a few steps on the road which leads, if you continue along it, to arcana like the mass of the Higgs boson. Similarly, you can go through life without wondering what it means to “have a property” or to “be a cause”, or, you can take up metaphysics. Aristotle is to metaphysics what Newton is to physics, one of the early landmark thinkers whose subsequent imprint is ubiquitous.
I myself am willing to go out on a limb and say paper 4 is possibly worth thinking about and not blatant trolling. I presume lukeprog wouldn’t have a problem with a paper proposing an fMRI comparison study of atheist/theist Bach listeners. But one would first have to justify such an expense, no? Or at least formulate an hypothesis:
So what is the (appreciative) Christian experience of (great) religious music like? It is plausible to think that the following features are at least characteristic of it: (i) the sung text is taken to convey maximally deep and important truths about existence and the world — including, for example, truths about God, Christ, and the possibility of human salvation — and to convey them in a peculiarly powerful way; (ii) this power is registered, often or usually, in the emotional involvement that such works invite, so that listeners are stirred to feelings of, for example, wonder at the glory of God, gratitude for Christ’s sacrifice, or hope at the prospect of redemption; (iii) ‘emotional and spiritual succour’ is taken in the apprehension of these truths and the stirring of their attendant feelings; and (iv) this succour underwrites a very high valuation of the works which offer it.
I presume lukeprog wouldn’t have a problem with a paper proposing an fMRI comparison study of atheist/theist Bach listeners.
I hope lukeprog would not give a paper credence just because it did sciencey stuff and maths. There is, after all, the famous dead fish study which, as it happens, used fMRI. We have already learned that there is a lot of junk science in medicine and in nutrition. So also in neuroscience.
Presumably, then, you would study Kant in the early stages of whatever course you are devoting to Kripke’s work. Other than his work in Political Philosophy (I’m well aware he’s a prerequisite for that,) what other foundational purpose does studying Kant serve?
I think you’d have an easier time justifying the thesis ‘Kant was wrong about everything’ than ‘Kant was not super-super-crazy-influential.’ Consider:
Kant ⇒ Schopenhauer ⇒ Nietzsche ⇒ all the postmodernists and relativists
Kant ⇒ Schopenhauer ⇒ Wittgenstein ⇒ most of the positivists
Kant ⇒ Schopenhauer ⇒ Nietzsche ⇒ Freud
Kant ⇒ Fichte ⇒ Hegel ⇒ Marx
Kant ⇒ von Mises ⇒ the less fun libertarians
My conclusion, by Six-Degrees-of-Hitler/Stalin/RonPaul ratiocination, is that Kant is directly and personally responsible for every atrocity of the 20th century.
I was just mulling over that Peter may have been right in this conversation, and then this beauty of a comment drops. You should put this on a poster or a t-shirt, or something! :)
Re-reading my post, it wasn’t clear that I was asking you for other examples, so I apologize for that. Would you mind giving other examples of relevant ideas for which a prior knowledge of Kant is absolutely necessary?
Having read a lot of bad attempted philosophy by scientists
But most of the really brilliant philosophers have come from a scientific background! For example, I don’t think 20th-century philosophy would have accomplished nearly as much without Wittgenstein. And Aristotle wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if he hadn’t spent all those years cataloging plants and animals.
Is a fairly self contained subject. You could go through a degree or two without ever touching upon it unless you had to study Hegel for unrelated reasons. So, I don’t see any reason he wouldn’t be taught during the course or in a course of his own which is a prerequisite for the GI course, rather than in Phil 101.
Believe it or not, philosophy educators have a reasonably good idea of what they are doing.
Your examples of bad philosophy … your reasons why they are bad … aargh! Apparently it’s bad to (1) reason about psychology (2) use the ideas of ancient philosophers (3) argue about definitions (4) mention religion at all. (I’m just guessing that this is the problem with the last item in the list.)
So far as I can see, the only problem you should have with papers 1 and 3 is that they’re not sexy enough to hold your interest. They’re not bursting at the seams with citations of experimental psychology or computational epistemology. Really, you shouldn’t dismiss paper 2 as you do either, but I concede that seeing value in the psychological reflections of antiquity would require unusual broadmindedness. (Paper 4 is just oddball and I won’t try to defend it as a representative of an important and unjustly maligned class of philosophical research.)
Concerning your curriculum for philosophy students, well, such zeal as yours is the basis for the renewal of a subject, but in the end I still think something like Plato and Kant would be a better foundation than Pearl and Kahneman. Causal diagrams and behavioral economics do not touch the why of causation or the how of conscious knowledge. If they were not complemented by something that promoted an awareness of the issues that these formalisms inherently do not answer, then philosophically they would define just another dogma parading itself as truth.
Please help me compare: what useful things does Plato say about the why of causation, and why should I believe him? How can I use Plato’s knowledge about causality to achieve things in the real world (except for impressing people by quoting him)?
Aristotle is a more straightforward example. If you made an effort to understand Aristotle’s four types of causes and ten categories of being—if you critically tried out that worldview for a while, tried to understand your own knowledge and experience in those terms, identified where it works and where it doesn’t, the logic of the part that works and the problem with the part that doesn’t—it would undoubtedly be instructive. Aristotle is such a systematic thinker, you might even fall in love with his system and become a neo-Aristotelian, bringing it up to date and evangelizing its relevance for today’s world.
This seems to be more indicative that if one thinks hard enough about any world view it will seem to be useful and make sense. This is essentially as much of an argument to take Aristotle seriously as C. S. Lewis’s claim that “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” is an argument to take Christianity seriously.
This doesn’t answer the question or even the type of question as phrased by Viliam. The claim isn’t that you can use a systematic approach to make your own thoughts ordered in some fashion, but how to make the claims pay rent.
Beating moistened clay against cold iron has a similar effect. On what basis do you claim Aristotle’s memeload is preferable, beyond it’s ability to make impressions?
Aristotle’s categories and causes are all very familiar concepts, so familiar that people don’t reflect on them. These “memes” are already there, they’re just not organised and criticised. It’s like physics. You can go through life without ever sorting out your ideas about force, energy, momentum… or you can take a few steps on the road which leads, if you continue along it, to arcana like the mass of the Higgs boson. Similarly, you can go through life without wondering what it means to “have a property” or to “be a cause”, or, you can take up metaphysics. Aristotle is to metaphysics what Newton is to physics, one of the early landmark thinkers whose subsequent imprint is ubiquitous.
I myself am willing to go out on a limb and say paper 4 is possibly worth thinking about and not blatant trolling. I presume lukeprog wouldn’t have a problem with a paper proposing an fMRI comparison study of atheist/theist Bach listeners. But one would first have to justify such an expense, no? Or at least formulate an hypothesis:
I hope lukeprog would not give a paper credence just because it did sciencey stuff and maths. There is, after all, the famous dead fish study which, as it happens, used fMRI. We have already learned that there is a lot of junk science in medicine and in nutrition. So also in neuroscience.
Luke, how does the Dolan & Sharot book measure up by the standards of science as it should be done?
I was not suggesting anything of the sort. Azari’s work on religious experience is not junk science, as far as I’m aware.
Seconded.
They’re a necessary foundation, because you can’t understand Kripke without understanding Kant (etc). That has nothing to do with reverence.
Presumably, then, you would study Kant in the early stages of whatever course you are devoting to Kripke’s work. Other than his work in Political Philosophy (I’m well aware he’s a prerequisite for that,) what other foundational purpose does studying Kant serve?
I think you’d have an easier time justifying the thesis ‘Kant was wrong about everything’ than ‘Kant was not super-super-crazy-influential.’ Consider:
Kant ⇒ Schopenhauer ⇒ Nietzsche ⇒ all the postmodernists and relativists
Kant ⇒ Schopenhauer ⇒ Wittgenstein ⇒ most of the positivists
Kant ⇒ Schopenhauer ⇒ Nietzsche ⇒ Freud
Kant ⇒ Fichte ⇒ Hegel ⇒ Marx
Kant ⇒ von Mises ⇒ the less fun libertarians
My conclusion, by Six-Degrees-of-Hitler/Stalin/RonPaul ratiocination, is that Kant is directly and personally responsible for every atrocity of the 20th century.
You seem to be in company with Ayn Rand there
Even a broken Ayn Rand is right twice a day.
Twice a day may be a bit too often. Let’s settle on some lower rate, shall we?
I was just mulling over that Peter may have been right in this conversation, and then this beauty of a comment drops. You should put this on a poster or a t-shirt, or something! :)
This was quite possibly the best interwebs post I’ve seen in a long time … if you don’t start making these t-shirts, I will!
I didn’t say Kant was only relevant to Kripke. He was hugely influential.
Re-reading my post, it wasn’t clear that I was asking you for other examples, so I apologize for that. Would you mind giving other examples of relevant ideas for which a prior knowledge of Kant is absolutely necessary?
Eg. the whole of German Idealism. Believe it or not, philosophy educators have a reasonably good idea of what they are doing.
Having dropped a double major in philosophy, I’m inclined to take the side of “not.”
Having read a lot of bad attempted philosophy by scientists, I’m inclined to think phil. doens’t need replacement by, or oversight from, science
But most of the really brilliant philosophers have come from a scientific background! For example, I don’t think 20th-century philosophy would have accomplished nearly as much without Wittgenstein. And Aristotle wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if he hadn’t spent all those years cataloging plants and animals.
Is a fairly self contained subject. You could go through a degree or two without ever touching upon it unless you had to study Hegel for unrelated reasons. So, I don’t see any reason he wouldn’t be taught during the course or in a course of his own which is a prerequisite for the GI course, rather than in Phil 101.
Some do, some don’t, generalizing is fun.