I didn't see the author explicitly state how prominent these philosophies are, nor that they are unique, he just made a list of them. I think you are being very cynical in that regard.
You'd be correct, but hey, that doesn't make for a catchy title now, does it?! And apparently "I have a degree in philosophy, but haven't read any of the classic literature on this subject, so I'm almost certainly reinventing the wheel." so this person doesn't exactly strike me as the type to know some of the most influential philosophies of the modern era....
The article says "philosophically interesting" – unless I am missing something, that's a very different thing than what you're claiming the article says.
It's a good list for cherry-picking a couple reading ideas, but the amateur comments about philosophy weren't well-received by this individual.
> I find that it’s thoroughly undervalued by philosophers
Doing okay so far...
>though, who see it as an arcane and eccentric work of little value
Not so sure about that...the timing for Wittgenstein's work might've been unfortunate, given that people were starting to become infatuated with existentialism around the same time. That was as more of a pop-culture phenomenon than an academic fad though.
>it’s a difficult thing to read
Okay again...
>Ironically for a book ignored by most philosophers, it contains the answers to a lot of their questions, and the method for answering all of them.
Hrm, no. A lot of the questions concerning philosophy and the method for answering all of them?
I sincerely doubt any work that could described in such terms would be as obscure as he proposes. This borders on the illogic of conspiracy theorists believing they've found some secret truth.
A bizarre flash of irrationality in an otherwise great post.
But many of the author's points don't apply to philosophy papers, either - when philosophers are deciding what to write they don't start with their conclusion any more than scientists and engineers do. Likewise, the author's claim not to have been convinced by a philosophical paper seems odd to me, and suggests he doesn't have much familiarity with philosophy. If anything, I think there are more influential papers than books in philosophy, particularly of the analytic sort; think of Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," Gettier's "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge," or Putnam's "The Meaning of Meaning," for instance, all of which are more influential than any of the books written by these authors.
OK, I agree that it is not philosophy in itself that is pointless, merely the majority of "popular" philosophy appears to be so. If you have any recommendations for good philosophy reads, I would be happy to check them out.
Sorry -- why do we need to provide disclaimers as to authors' philosophical leanings? Or is it just this particular philosophy that you think needs to be noted?
Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I feel like this is yet another modern philosopher re-hashing the same stuff that's been discussed ad nauseam for literally thousands of years. Classical philosophers established long ago that philosophy in a vacuum is pointless, that it shouldn't be considered as an exercise by itself, but rather as a tool to consider everyday matters, whatever these may be. Most forms of meta-philosophy are interesting mental masturbation exercises, but that's about all they achieve.
> This provincializing of Europe helps to show how at least two ancient civilizations, India and China, have intellectual traditions of writing and argument enough like "Philosophia" to merit the name of philosophy. But Smith goes further, proposing that the reflections of nonliterate societies, oral traditions, and discursive forms based on myth and metaphor have some claim to count as philosophy as well.
Again, sorry but this isn't anything new. In fact, a lot of classical philosophy takes its roots in oral tradition, you could even argue that most old religions are based on these principles. I find it a little bit offensive to not only assume that Smith is the first to come up with this idea, but to completely ignore History in the process.
All that said, this is just a book review and I haven't read the book itself. If I'm being needlessly harsh and idiotic, I'd love to be shown so and read the book for penance and enlightenment.
Ye gods, there's a whole section of philosophy devoted to pragmatism, which by it's very definition could care less where stuff came from.
I know that there's no way somebody received an advanced degree in philosophy and is now making a case that the historical roots of one thought system or another is more important than how useful it is. This has to be a troll.
You measure systems, whatever they are, by how well they achieve the goals you have set them up to address. Philosophy, especially, is a field of endeavor where you move between toolsets depending on the situation and context. That's because philosophy is not a science, it's a set of tools.
It's also not a preschool art project, and observing the field from a distance and noting that there's not enough blue, or too many mountains, is the height of reductionist idiocy.
I'm sorry for the vehemence. This article makes me sad. These folks should know better.
I am reminded of the old saying: if you do not know why you are doing something, stop doing it.
Moderation, avoiding extremes, yin and yang etc are core ideas in a lot of philosophies. I am well aware of that.
While I can not be completely exhaustive in HN comment, I did point out that my issue is with having a philosophy that predetermines in a generalized way where that golden middle way is. And the difference between seeing it in hindsight and trying to predict it.
I do not find philosophies useless, just not recipes for living your life like the author of the article tries.
Not denigrating Western Philosophy at all -- whose ubiquity may well be due to Eurocentrism primarily -- just saying there's more to look at elsewhere if one is interested in philosophy in general.
Your link isn't taking me to the comment, is this the one you're referring to?
> Anonymous Anonymous said...
> I started that piece but found it intolerable to read on. I do synpathize with your general point - that philosophy is important (well that appears to be your point from the first paragraphs, but I'm sure I missed the Lisp part that is bound to follow) - but does it have to be so naive? Do you have to announce your alsmost complete ignorance of all matters philosophic with fanfares? First, philosophy, like all science, is not ethically good or bad per se. Just as there were (and still are) scientific theories justifying racism, so there have been (and still are) philosophies justifying oppression, slavery and genocide. Plato and some of his fellow philosophers were working hard to develop a philosophy that sounded good and beautiful while celebrating inequality and slavery(hint: a standard method to achieve this is to invent a heavenly realm of ideals). Similar things can be said about philosophers sympathizing with fascism, like Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger etc. And your claim that there was no philosophy between antiquity and modernity is ludicrous. Medieval occidental philosophy (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas etc.) was of course subordinate to religion and the church but it was still philosophy, whether you like it or not, and much of modern philosophy is influenced by those church men. Steve, why is it that you have to write over-over-overlong blogs about subjects you don't understand? It's not a genuine interest in philosphy, I must conclude. Mind you, philosophy isn't about screaming as loud as you can, it's about thinking - studying - a lot of studying, actually - before talking. Si Tacuisses, Philosophus Mansisses as they used to say in the old days. You SHOULD absolutely get hold of some Russell before you continue discracing yourself like this. Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Philosophy_(...
> that doesn't mean you can't have consistent philosophies
Social structures and politics are not philosophically or logically consistent! Philosophies are, at best, a useful set of guide, but it isn't hard to find pathological examples for any philosophy.
> " I'd say the majority of philosophers silently agree that 80% of all publications or more in philosophy are nonsense or bullshit and only the rest is even worth reading, but they all disagree about which 80% percent..."
Are you saying that philosophy in general encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking?
reply