Post: #26

I think most modern philosophy is actually conceptual analysis. This seems to be what Colin Mcginn argues - but I haven't had a chance to study his book on this yet.

Post: #27

The New York Times has an excellent philosophy blog. It goes back a couple of yeard and covers about 35 pages. It is a collection of interesting articles and links from the web to do with philosophy.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/cat...the-stone/

I am currently working through it to see what catches my interest.

Although it can be a little wearying reading through so much philosophy. And it reminds me a little of why I fell out of love with it in the first place. I think in the future I will focus on Daniel Dennett and modern academic metaphysics. Since they seem to be my two main interests.

As for Colin Mcginn's analysis of philosophy. He advocates killing off the name 'philosophy' and replacing it with 'ontics':

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ther-name/

Post: #28

I think the most important questions in philosophy are:

how to lead a happy life?
should i stay alive or quit?

some claim that the second is the only real question.

Post: #29

Albert Camus wrote a book on that. Check out 'The Myth of Sisyphus'.

It is a great book. And throughout it all he is essentially trying to address the question of whether or not you should just put the book down and immediately commit suicide.

Post: #30

As for me. I have decided to row back into the shores of philosophy a bit more. Haven't really done this in about 8 years.

Just ordered a book which analyzes the work of Saul Kripke.

Post: #31

Jerry Fodor (a famous analytic philosopher) regularly writes indepth reviews/essays for 'The London Review Of Books'.

Anyway - in the following article - he gives a useful overview of the rise of analytic philosophy over the past century.

It is entertaining to read since Fodor - despite being an analytic philosopher - is a little sceptical of the value of alot of this work.

The following article is a little heavy going. Indeed - the most intellectually challenging articles I come across are always in 'The London Review of Books'.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n20/jerry-fodor...everywhere

Post: #32

EXISTENTIALISM

Post: #33

I like these guys http://www.actualfreedom.com.au

Red pill on overdrive.

Although I will admit I've totally failed at what they espouse despite years of effort. It's a work in progress for me.

Post: #34

Cardguy, thanks for all the suggestions.

Post: #35

Actually - I have cancelled the Saul Kripke book I mentioned earlier.

Reading the Jerry Fodor essay above reminded me of how exhausting this level of analytic philosophy is.

It is a reminder of why I like Daniel Dennett. Even though he uses the tools of analytical philosophy. He doesn't go overboard in the way that alot of the others do. Instead he just tries to use his intelligence and ingenuity to make progress in answering interesting questions. And is happy to use interesting insights from science, philosophy and even (I kid you not) card tricks to make his points. As an expert in card magic myself - that last one really tickled me.

I just came across this autobiographical piece he has written. I haven't read it yet since I am going to savour it at some later stage. But thought I would pass it along now:

http://philosophynow.org/issues/68/Danie...phy_Part_1

Post: #36

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that Charles Darwin is the most important philosopher ever. Even though he was a scientist.

Well - in a sense he really was a philosopher. I never realised this until I came across a passage in one of the books by Richard Dawkins.

You see the principle of natural selection is not a scientific fact. But is instead - a logical fact. Which follows logically from the very principle of what the concept of reproduction means.

I will try and outline the point Dawkins was making. You see - Dawkins says that there was no reason why somebody couldn't have come up with the theory of natural selection thousands of years ago. As opposed to us all having to wait until 150 years ago.

And not only that - but (as with any good philosopher) it would have being possible for a thinker to discover the theory of natural selection without ever having to leave his armchair.

You see - all reproduction is neccesarily imperfect. No system of reproduction is ever going to reproduce perfectly 100% of the time.

And with those imperfections - we introduce variation into the next generation of life which has reproduced from the previous generation.

And - amongst this variation - the majority of the variations will hinder the organism in reproducing (since it is easy to fuck something up than it is to make it better), some will have no effect in the reproduction of the organism and a tiny minority will have a beneficial effect in helping the organism to reproduce.

Reproduction consists of living long enough to reproduce. So - these variations which are beneficial will either help the organism live long enough to reproduce or help the organism to reproduce more effectively.

And since - logically speaking - there has to be a limit to the amount of resources available to organisms. There will be competition between organisms in order to try and get the resources they need to live (and ultimately reproduce).

And that competition for resources will mean that those organisms with beneficial variations will reproduce more often than those organisms that have variations which hinder the organism.

Which means each generation will be more and more suited to their environment than previous generations.

Which gives us the concept of evolution. With the mechanism of natural selection which drives it.

And all of this is something that a smart guy (including every 'classic' philosopher that has ever lived) could - in theory - have thought of for themselves. Since no observations are required and because it follows naturally from the very concept of what it means for an organism to reproduce in a limited environment.

I agree with Daniel Dennett. Charles Darwin gets the prize for the best idea ever.

Post: #37

Kant and Plato had touched on evolution before already - suggesting humans weren't always in the form that they are presently. Darwin was just the first the confirm it scientifically. It's just like Democritus already came had came up with the idea of an atom but it wasn't until centuries later that it was confirmed by science.

Post: #38

Nice contributions from everyone.

One thing that I wonder about for today's generation, which "philosophers" (doesn't have to be in the strictest sense) would you guys recommend for young men to read and which ones are most likely to be applicable and practical for their lives?

For example, in the martial arts and hip hop communities, a lot of people will read Bruce Lee (who studied philosophy) that might not otherwise pick up a summary of Aquinas, Kierkegaard, etc.

I ask this because I find I enjoy discussing philosophy the LEAST with those who are in masters or phd philosophy programs. Not trying to generalize, it's just been my experience that discussion becomes bogged down in pedantic details or ego-sensitivity around knowledge.

Whereas it seems to be more accessible for most people when you can relate it to something immediate or empirical, then segue into famous names and works. For example, you can find elements of Stoicism even in works by other cultures (i.e. Musashi) which can also provide an entertaining foundation to explore the concepts.

If anyone feels like this is a thread hijack from the OP, then let me know and we can start another.

Post: #39

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius would be a good start. Instead of being focused on abstract or technical issues the book instead talks about actions you can perform in practical life and the sort of mindset you should have in order to lead a good life. Also it's an easy read - not dense at all so it's something you can dip in and out of.

Post: #40

I think some of Alain De Botton's work might fit. He is a popular writer here in England - and has a big interest in philosophy.

He is also an excellent writer - and his Dad is worth about a hundred million pounds. So - he has the enviable position of being able to write purely for pleasure.

This book - uses classic philosophers to address common problems in the modern world:

http://www.amazon.com/Consolations-Philo...217&sr=1-2

This was later turned into a TV series that he presented. The links I am finding for this series don't work since Channel 4 (the channel that broadcast them) keeps pulling them down. But you can watch them on the Channel 4 website. But if you are outside the UK - you may have to try and use a proxy server to get round the copyright restrictions.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/philo...piness/4od

He has written other interesting books. One on travel, one on architecture, one on work, one on status anxiety and one on Marcel Proust. He also wrote an interesting journal of a week he spent living in an airport. Alain De Botton has a thing about airports and gets very philosophical when he spends time in them.

His novels are good as well. Indeed - his first novel ('Essays in Love') was a stylistic and philosophical non-fiction analysis of a love affair he had. But his publisher said he would sell more copies if he simply put the words 'A Novel' on the cover.

Alain De Botton went ahead and did this.

It is funny - because for a long time it was the only work of fiction that I really loved. And then I later found out it wasn't a work of fiction at all. Funny for me since I have always loved non-fiction and hated fiction.

I think the above is a pretty good set of pointers since not many other people try and write popular philosophy with this much originality and artistic flair.

Post: #41

(06-24-2013 12:47 AM)Wutang Wrote:  Meditations by Marcus Aurelius would be a good start. Instead of being focused on abstract or technical issues the book instead talks about actions you can perform in practical life and the sort of mindset you should have in order to lead a good life. Also it's an easy read - not dense at all so it's something you can dip in and out of.

I've been meaning to read him and the rest of the Stoics. Tim Ferriss and Nicholas Nassem Taleb can't both be wrong, right?

WIA

Post: #42

Not trying to start a flame war, but does philosophy still have relevance in today's world?

Outside of arguments about ethics, morality and law, I just don't see what philosophy provides that can't be answered by the physical, biological and social sciences & mathematics. Look at all the advances that physical, biological and social science & mathematics have provided and compare that to what modern philosophy provides. I think the answer is clear.

I don't know, I guess I am just ranting because in college philosophy was my least favorite course. We read a lot of primary source material and had a lot of discussions, but I could never get very motivated about it.

Post: #43

(06-24-2013 01:01 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Not trying to start a flame war, but does philosophy still have relevance in today's world?

Outside of arguments about ethics, morality and law, I just don't see what philosophy provides that can't be answered by the physical, biological and social sciences. Look at all the advances that physical, biological and social science have provided and compare that to what modern philosophy provides. I think the answer is clear.

I don't know, I guess I am just ranting because in college philosophy was my least favorite course. We read a lot of primary source material and had a lot of discussions, but I could never get very motivated about it.

Philosophy can be boiled down to a sincere desire to understand that which could not be quantified adequately at a given time. That's why it worked so well with religion and spirituality. Like the meaning of life. Or whether there was an after life. Or why people behave as they do. Or what is the self? We can throw away philosophy in the trash heap at this point because like you say we now have the tools and the scientific understanding of many of these questions that humanity struggled with for thousands of years.

We now know that man isn't a sinful or dirty creature because science has taught us that the amygdala overrides the rational cognitive brain with it's instinctual drive to reproduce, to flee in fear, to fight with aggression, or nurture young, etc.

Philisophy today is what you make of it. In these past couple of months I delved into old greek myths to understand how the greeks viewed women and see what understanding they had of what they were like, what advice they had about women in their times and why they suggested such. Stories like Pandora, fascinating and somewhat turns ones stomach as you might have believed it yourself if you lived in such times. They're portrayal of women in that story is disturbingly accurate yet it's just a mythical fable.

I use philisophy as temporary paradigm shifts, temporary maps that get me to a better place, mentally, emotionally, physically. At some point though I know I won't have a use for it at all.

Post: #44

(06-24-2013 01:38 AM)Hammer Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 01:01 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Not trying to start a flame war, but does philosophy still have relevance in today's world?

Outside of arguments about ethics, morality and law, I just don't see what philosophy provides that can't be answered by the physical, biological and social sciences. Look at all the advances that physical, biological and social science have provided and compare that to what modern philosophy provides. I think the answer is clear.

I don't know, I guess I am just ranting because in college philosophy was my least favorite course. We read a lot of primary source material and had a lot of discussions, but I could never get very motivated about it.

Philosophy can be boiled down to a sincere desire to understand that which could not be quantified adequately at a given time. That's why it worked so well with religion and spirituality. Like the meaning of life. Or whether there was an after life. Or why people behave as they do. Or what is the self? We can throw away philosophy in the trash heap at this point because like you say we now have the tools and the scientific understanding of many of these questions that humanity struggled with for thousands of years.

We now know that man isn't a sinful or dirty creature because science has taught us that the amygdala overrides the rational cognitive brain with it's instinctual drive to reproduce, to flee in fear, to fight with aggression, or nurture young, etc.

Philisophy today is what you make of it. In these past couple of months I delved into old greek myths to understand how the greeks viewed women and see what understanding they had of what they were like, what advice they had about women in their times and why they suggested such. Stories like Pandora, fascinating and somewhat turns ones stomach as you might have believed it yourself if you lived in such times. They're portrayal of women in that story is disturbingly accurate yet it's just a mythical fable.

I use philisophy as temporary paradigm shifts, temporary maps that get me to a better place, mentally, emotionally, physically. At some point though I know I won't have a use for it at all.

You make a good point.

I do want to stress that on issues like ethics, morality and law, philosophy still has value since those topics are always going to be subjective and open to interpretation.

My main point was that on other topics, modern science and mathematics provides real answers nowadays while modern philosophy does not. Even questions like "What is the Self?" are now being studied and investigated by cognitive researchers.

In ancient times, most of the questions that where asked by philosophers couldn't be answered scientifically because modern science and mathematics didn't exist to answer them, so they were part of philosophy. As things like physics or astronomy became real sciences on their own right, they broke off from philosophy and became sciences.

I think philosophy may have value as an exercise in thinking about arguments logically and thoroughly, but a lot of philosophy seems like self-indulgent navel-gazing. That is, it seems like argument for argument's sake, and so often devolves into semantics and pseudo-intellectual jousting.

Post: #45

The subject matter that the physical sciences and mathematics studies lead to more straight forward and clear answers because of the nature of those questions they are designed to answer. Mathematics gets it clarity from it's logical nature - you can clearly trace how one proposition follows from another and how it leads to another. The sciences are the same way only with less precision and purity than math since it is a posteriori and relies on empirical evidence that can be overturned by just one counter example while a math theorem or proof is a priori knowledge and is true because of it's logical content.

Philosophy, at least these days now that the sciences have broken off deals with subject matters that are a lot more murky and doesn't lend itself to concise explanations. To a lot of people, especially people who are more on the practical side and less prone to navel-gazing it's going to seem like a lot of BS. It's like what I said with metaphysics before in this thread, it really seems like one of those things you simply have a ear for or not. I've noticed people in the Anglo world (I include the US along with this) tend to not have a taste for this sort of thinking - hence why philosophy has been demoted to mostly analysis and as a handmaiden to the physical sciences in the intellectual world in those nations.

There are some questions that science simply can't touch though - mainly questions that have to do with "meaning" and the such - though it can generate data that is useful for answering these questions.

One example of is the sort of questions that Sam Harris deals with in his book on the science of morality. Basically he adopts a utilitarian position when it comes to morality - that doing good means to do what involves the most pleasure and least suffering for the greatest amount of people. He then says science can help in with this in determining what brings that most pleasure - such as performing brain scans to see what actions brings out the most stimulation in the pleasure center of the brain and such. However, notice that his initial assertion, that the utilitarian position on morality is the correct one was not based on science but on other sorts of reasoning. He has already made up in his mind, via non-scientific reasoning and he uses science afterwards to put his ideas into practical use.

Post: #46

Funny quote from the geneticist, Steve Jones:

Quote:Philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier and some people prefer it.

Post: #47

(06-24-2013 01:01 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Not trying to start a flame war, but does philosophy still have relevance in today's world?

Outside of arguments about ethics, morality and law, I just don't see what philosophy provides that can't be answered by the physical, biological and social sciences & mathematics. Look at all the advances that physical, biological and social science & mathematics have provided and compare that to what modern philosophy provides. I think the answer is clear.

I don't know, I guess I am just ranting because in college philosophy was my least favorite course. We read a lot of primary source material and had a lot of discussions, but I could never get very motivated about it.

Science doesn't tell us as much as we think it does. Take for example, Newton's law of Force = mass times acceleration. This law characterizes motion using three measurable variables. Machines can actually be built to measure these variables and together they express a certain kind of behavior.

This formula is powerful in that in allows man to build impressive machines based on it. But from a philosophical point of view, it doesn't really explain much about gravity or motion at all or why it is here. It just shows a particular behavior between measurable variables.

Likewise, the same argument applies to more comprehensive theories and even the theory of general relativity. Quantum mechanics, which is the most complete understanding of physics, is a series of equations. Physicists will be able to describe behavior based on these formulas, but quantum physics doesn't even postulate a physical model or an ontology to explain what is happening. The understanding is purely mathematical.

Science doesn't answer the why questions or tell us how to live. Going beyond the equations and pretending that science has all the answers is called scientism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Post: #48

(06-24-2013 01:23 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 01:01 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Not trying to start a flame war, but does philosophy still have relevance in today's world?

Outside of arguments about ethics, morality and law, I just don't see what philosophy provides that can't be answered by the physical, biological and social sciences & mathematics. Look at all the advances that physical, biological and social science & mathematics have provided and compare that to what modern philosophy provides. I think the answer is clear.

I don't know, I guess I am just ranting because in college philosophy was my least favorite course. We read a lot of primary source material and had a lot of discussions, but I could never get very motivated about it.

Science doesn't tell us as much as we think it does. Take for example, Newton's law of Force = mass times acceleration. This law characterizes motion using three measurable variables. Machines can actually be built to measure these variables and together they express a certain kind of behavior.

This formula is powerful in that in allows man to build impressive machines based on it. But from a philosophical point of view, it doesn't really explain much about gravity or motion at all or why it is here. It just shows a particular behavior between measurable variables.

Likewise, the same argument applies to more comprehensive theories and even the theory of general relativity. Quantum mechanics, which is the most complete understanding of physics, is a series of equations. Physicists will be able to describe behavior based on these formulas, but quantum physics doesn't even postulate a physical model or an ontology to explain what is happening. The understanding is purely mathematical.

Science doesn't answer the why questions or tell us how to live. Going beyond the equations and pretending that science has all the answers is called scientism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't stay that philosophy was completely useless, after all I did say that in matters of ethics, morality and laws, it still has value.

However, you are short changing science and mathematics if you say its predictive power doesn't prove it is more useful in most other respects than philosophy. For example, scientists recently proved the existence of the Higgs Boson, completing the standard model in quantum mechanics. Who knows what science will have explained 100 years from now or 1000 years from now.

Furthermore, the predictive power of science and mathematics has over time shrunken the questions that need to be asked by philosophy. One day, science may provide answers to questions such as "Where did we come from?" and "What is the true nature of reality?" We could reach a day when almost all questions have been answered by science and mathematics.

Post: #49

(06-24-2013 01:38 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  I didn't stay that philosophy was completely useless, after all I did say that in matters of ethics, morality and laws, it still has value.

Furthermore, the predictive power of science and mathematics has over time shrunken the questions that need to be asked by philosophy. One day, science may provide answers to questions such as "Where did we come from?" and "What is the true nature of reality?" We could reach a day when almost all questions have been answered by science and mathematics.

And that is the point of view of scientism. If it turns out that our human minds, which allegedly evolved so we can climb trees and get bananas more efficiently, can actually understand the entire universe by measuring a few observable variables, then that poses a whole new set of philisophical puzzles as to why we can do that.

Post: #50

(06-23-2013 05:48 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Albert Camus wrote a book on that. Check out 'The Myth of Sisyphus'.

It is a great book. And throughout it all he is essentially trying to address the question of whether or not you should just put the book down and immediately commit suicide.

Choosing to live on or not is just a matter of will. People will give all sorts of reasons and rationalization for why they choose to stay alive but in the end it all just comes down to this: they simply want to stay alive because the will to live implores them to stay alive. It's one of those "brute facts of the universe" in my opinion. Choosing whether to live or to end yourself goes beyond reason.

The same applies to animals and also other lower organisms; only they don't have the abstract intelligence that we do so they don't try to give reasons for this in the same way we do.

Don't know if I really expressed myself well here - this one of those thoughts I've had in my head for a while but this is literally the first time I've actually tried to express it to another person and the first time I've tried to articulate it in words.