Ask a Philosopher!

[Thoughtful Thug]

What the hell does this mean - deciding the demarcation of science? Wut!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Fifty:

I was reading Hegel's The Philosophy of Art, and I came across this passage which I don't really understand. Can you help me with it?

The second objection more particularly alleges that beautiful works of art are unsuited for the scientific treatment of thought, because they take their origin in the unregulated fantasy and the emotional nature; and, inconceivable as they are in number and variety, they exert their influence only on the feelings and imagination. This objection appears to be still of importance, and it is felt to be a ground of embarrassment. For it is often asserted that the Beautiful of Art does not appear in a form which stands expressly in contrast to thought, and which thought, in order to its own mode of operation, is compelled to abolish. This view coincides with the opinion that what is real in the life of nature and of the mind, is defaced and slain by the process of conceiving it; and that instead of being brought nigh to us by intellectual apprehension, it is thus actually removed from us. And hence, it is said, that man in the effort to apprehend what is living, by means of thought, frustrates the very object in view by the fatal nature of the process itself. This position cannot be here discussed in detail, but the point of view may be merely indicated from which the removal of this difficulty - whether felt as irresoluble in itself, or merely embarrassing - is to be effected.

 

[pau17]

From a different thread:

Be careful with that one! I haven't read it or heard anything about it, but I once watched a BBC documentary on Goedel, Cantor, Turing, and Bolzmann, and Chaitin seemed to say a lot of philosophically suspect things about just what Goedel had proven about the epistemology of math in the interviews.

Can you elaborate? I just finished a book on Godel, so if you could alternatively just talk about what some of the misconceptions are, that would be appreciated too. I was looking at this book with interest:

http://books.google.com/books?id=71...nzen&hl=es#v=onepage&q=torkel franzen&f=false

Edit: I found this paper of Chaitin's on Google, if it helps at all...

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/georgia.html

 

[Perfection]

Who was the most genius philosopher ever?

Who was the most insane philosopher ever?

Who philosopher with the highest insanity times genius product ever?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't know how much you have gotten into art theory or art historical methods, but what is your opinion of Roger Fry and Formalism?

 

[Birdjaguar]

T
To my mind, self-consciousness is the most important hallmark of sapience. Now, Fifty's right: this is an empirical, more than a philosophical, issue. But allow me to go slightly OT, and suggest that there is good evidence that self-consciousness does not require language. Further, there's some reason to suspect that high intelligence is possible without language; PM me if interested.

The mirror test and what critters are self aware was discussed here beginning about post 50.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=278127

Apes, elephants, dolphins and magpies have all passed the mirror test.

 

[Shylock]

What is philosophy? How can someone completely new to it start to get into it? What am I supposed to be getting from it and learning from it?

 

[El_Machinae]

What's the most accepted philosophical definition of "Good" and "evil"?
Is an act good, is the intention good, is the person good, or is the consequence good?

(please only use the definitions of good and evil that are mutually exclusive)

 

[pau17]

Do you do any philosophy of math? If so, what's hot in that right now? What do you think about the indispensability argument put forth by Quine et. al.?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/

 

[Methos]

For those of you who use iTunes....

I came across this on iTunes U yesterday. The Oxford University has released Philosophy for Beginners. Currently there are five classes, each approx. 1.5 hours long. I'm finding them rather interesting.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

What was Aristotle's sexual orientation?

 

[Godwynn]

Greetings,

Sorry for coming a bit late to this thread. I have the option of taking an introductory course in Philosophy next semester.

You may not remember but, what were some of the things you learned in your first philosophy class? I have never taken one before, and I don't even know how the classes will be structured. Will it be worth my time to take this class?

As always, thanks ahead of time!

 

[Orange Seeds]

Greetings,

Sorry for coming a bit late to this thread. I have the option of taking an introductory course in Philosophy next semester.

You may not remember but, what were some of the things you learned in your first philosophy class? I have never taken one before, and I don't even know how the classes will be structured. Will it be worth my time to take this class?

As always, thanks ahead of time!

What is the course title?

 

[Godwynn]

What is the course title?

Introduction to Philosophy



Here is the description:

Introduction to fundamental philosophical issues across a broad spectrum. Problems in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics will be among the areas explored. Emphasis throughout is upon developing in the student an appreciation of the nature of philosophical questioning, analyzing and evaluating arguments and reflecting on the nature of human existence.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Introduction to Philosophy



Here is the description:

Slightly OT, does Roland Burris ever visit your school?

Anyway, back to topic, if this course is anything like the one I took in College, you will get a smattering of the great dead philosophers.

 

[Godwynn]

Slightly OT, does Roland Burris ever visit your school?

Anyway, back to topic, if this course is anything like the one I took in College, you will get a smattering of the great dead philosophers.

I don't think he has come downstate since he graduated.

Good I say!

 

[Imperialmajesty]

I don't think he has come downstate since he graduated.

Good I say!

Well, why would he leave his office in Washington to visit, its ing golden.

 

[Fifty]

So fifty, as philosophy includes deciding the demarcation of science, what prestigious fields of today claim to be science or rigorous but in reality aren't? Is Economics an example of this? What fields of social science can be considered genuine science and what can't?

You can't categorically say that ALL of any given social science is non-science. Economics is mostly non-science. There are some sub-fields in economics (e.g. experimental economics) that are scientific. I think most of contemporary economics is like an area of applied math, and, with certain exceptions (e.g. game theoretic micro) not a particularly interesting area of applied math. See here for a nice quick overview, and see the work of Alex Rosenberg for more in depth eviscerations of the scientific pretensions of economics.

Note that this is not just some trivial or boring semantic question. Economists get a lot of play out of claiming that economics is a science.

As for other social sciences, its similar to economics. Some areas of sociology, for instance, are quite scientific, but most aren't.

It is also worth saying that just because a social science is not a science does not mean it is useless. Of course, many areas of economics are defunct as serious research programs, but some explicitly non-science parts of economics are both interesting and useful. Economic history is the best example.

Fifty:

I was reading Hegel's The Philosophy of Art, and I came across this passage which I don't really understand. Can you help me with it?

I'm afraid I can't! After having spend a few good minutes trying to charitably interpret it, though, I can say with near certainty that figuring it out will not be worth the trouble.

Can you elaborate? I just finished a book on Godel, so if you could alternatively just talk about what some of the misconceptions are, that would be appreciated too.

I can't speak to Chaitin much in particular because all I saw was interview snippets. Some people mistake Goedel for a claim about epistemology or psychology (e.g. some true things are unknowable). Other people think it proves that us humans can do something that no computer can ever do. The idea is, I think, that we humans can ascertain the truth of a formally undecidable proposition, but that computers can't because they are "bound by logic". Even my caricature doesn't make any sense, but that is the best I can manage!

I was looking at this book with interest:

http://books.google.com/books?id=71...nzen&hl=es#v=onepage&q=torkel franzen&f=false

That book is highly regarded by one of the major philosophers of math who work on Goedel.

Edit: I found this paper of Chaitin's on Google, if it helps at all...

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/georgia.html

I skimmed it, and found it basically nonsensical. I don't know what he's even trying to argue!

Who was the most genius philosopher ever?

Leibniz is probably high up on the list, but I'll throw in my vote for P.F. Ramsey.

He did extremely important work in some of the most difficult areas of philosophy, invented an entire field of mathematics, and did major work in economic theory all before age 26, when he died. I can't think of any other philosopher who did so much in so little time.

Who was the most insane philosopher ever?

If he counts as a philosopher, then probably Goedel. Starved himself to death on fear that he was going to be poisoned.

Who philosopher with the highest insanity times genius product ever?

Goedel, probably, again. Plotinus is probably aware of some interestingly nuts medieval philosophers.

I don't know how much you have gotten into art theory or art historical methods, but what is your opinion of Roger Fry and Formalism?

Haven't heard of him! Got a good non-wiki link that I may check out?

What is philosophy? How can someone completely new to it start to get into it? What am I supposed to be getting from it and learning from it?

Philosophy is perhaps best characterized as the attempt to answer questions that are both 1) foundational to areas of the broadest scope and interest, and 2) not amenable to mathematical proof or scientific inquiry.

If you are interested in it, I'd recommend just reading some philosophy! I would think that reading a standard logic textbook, a decent history of philosophy, and then browsing Stanford Encyclopedia articles of interest would be a great way to go about getting a good basic philosophy education without taking any classes.

First of all philosophy will help clarify your thinking on philosophical questions. So if you find philosophical questions interesting in their own right, thats a great reason. It also helps one learn to think. I can speak and think intelligibly on a very wide range of issues thanks to the critical thinking ability philosophy has helped me develop.

What's the most accepted philosophical definition of "Good" and "evil"?

I think "good" is pretty much a primitive term in philosophy, like "set" in mathematics. We can point to instances of good, we can give circular-definitions like "positive moral value", but we can't really give a proper helpful definition of "good".

Now, at a greater level of abstraction there are certainly debates in meta-ethics about "moral semantics". This is what TLC and I were discussing earlier in the thread. So some people think that "x is good" just means "I approve of x" or "horray x!' or something. There is no generally accepted answer to questions of moral semantics, though.

As for "evil", I think that is just "bad" in the primitive sense, + some sort of relationship to an intention, motivation, or character of an agent (real or metaphorical).

Is an act good, is the intention good, is the person good, or is the consequence good?

Nobody would argue that the term "good" can't be usefully uttered in the context of all three of those possibilities. People do argue about which one of these is most fundamental, though. There are, speaking very roughly, three main branches in normative ethics:

1. Consequentialist: The goodness of the ACT is fundamental. Consequentialists believe the goodness of an act depends on its consequences.

2. Deontologist: The goodness of the ACT is fundamental. Deontologists believe the goodness of an act depends on whether that act is obligatory via some principle that ascribes duties to people.

3. Virtue ethicist: The goodness of the PERSON is fundamental. Virtue ethicists believe that the goodness of an act is a derivative fact based on the goodness of the person who committed that act. What makes a person good is their approximation to some principle or principles of virtue.

For each of these three, they may or may not a major role for intentions. All three can accommodate intentions, and all three can live without intentions.

Do you do any philosophy of math?

I'm very interested in it but lacking in education in the area.

If so, what's hot in that right now?

Here is a site that publishes (on the basis of surveys of major researchers in the field) the best philosophy articles each year. This year, two seem obviously philosophy of math-ish (the two published in the review of symbolic logic). You can bet that, given how recently they were published and that they are considered among the top 10 philosophy articles of the year, that whatever they talk about are current hot topics.

What do you think about the indispensability argument put forth by Quine et. al.?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/

I really don't know much about the arguments against it, but I like the arguments for it! I'm inclined towards realism about abstract objects like numbers.

Greetings,

Sorry for coming a bit late to this thread. I have the option of taking an introductory course in Philosophy next semester.

You may not remember but, what were some of the things you learned in your first philosophy class? I have never taken one before, and I don't even know how the classes will be structured. Will it be worth my time to take this class?

As always, thanks ahead of time!

A lot of intro philosophy classes will tackle the following questions (needless to say, they will do so superficially):

Ethics: Most intro ethics courses start with either some applied ethics (e.g. abortion) or with relativism vs absolutism. The relativism stuff can be interesting, since it doesn't take more than a cursory bit in an intro course to realize that the standard arguments on which people base their relativism are really really bad.

Metaphysics/Epistemology: A popular one is to tackle the skeptical paradox. It used to be "am I dreaming" but now a lot of intro phil classes will talk about the Matrix in an attempt to relate to pop culture or something.

In order to recommend it or not I'd have to know what your alternative possibilities are for classes!

 

[Ecofarm]

Is hate wrong?

What about a hatred of murder or rape. Or bigotry.

Certainly it is wrong from a personal standpoint of ignorance, but is it wrong from a practical/institutional standpoint, especially in the longrun. Even from a personal standpoint, could the ignorance in greater cause be judged beneficial, or good, or right?

 

[Imperialmajesty]

What is your opinion of Richard Rorty?

As an aside, what is your view on Fallibilism?