Carly Fiorina kicked out of HP

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you knew anything, you'd know that Rawls' ideas have been the most influential political ideas of the last half century, with the possible exception of Hayek, who is supposed to be an economist, but is as much a political philosopher.

Frankly, I'd consider Hayek a political philosopher first, who used economics for his arguments about society.

[Nostromo]

All I hear from you is how they dictate ethics for us, which is hardly something I think is positive.

Who ever said that? Philosophy doesn't dictate anything. It doesn't tell you to live that way or that way. Philosophy isn't about dictating, it's about finding a rationale for our ethical beliefs. What is the foundation of our ethical beliefs, what is the consequence of holding this or that ethical belief?

[Agathon]

Frankly, I'd consider Hayek a political philosopher first, who used economics for his arguments about society.

I defer to you as I haven't read that much of him.

Who ever said that? Philosophy doesn't dictate anything. It doesn't tell you to live that way or that way. Philosophy isn't about dictating, it's about finding a rationale for our ethical beliefs. What is the foundation of our ethical beliefs, what is the consequence of holding this or that ethical belief?

I'll add to that, it is also for elucidating the implicit rules that guide our ethical decision making, thus helping people (like doctors) who have to make fraught decisions more able to make them confidently.

[Nostromo]

Strawman alert -- I'm referring to modern-day people who go to university and get a "philosophy" degree and call themselves philosophers.

This clearly does not include Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. I can't remember how many times you've tried this, and each time I remind you I don't care about old philosophers, the vast majority of which never got a degree in "philosophy".

So basically you're saying philosophy was useful, but it's not useful anymore. It sorta ran out of steam. I don't agree. Here are some example:

- Philosophers are doing good work in bioethical comitees.

- Philosopher's who study the mind work closely with psychologists, neurobiologists, computer scientists, etc. to further our understanding of the mind. The study of the human mind is an interdisciplinary undertaking, and it includes philosophy.

- Philosophers like Austin and Searle developed speech act theory, which was adopted afterwards by linguists.

Those are examples that come to mind. That said, I agree with you when you say that most philosophers are mediocre. But remember that we can say the same of every other discipline. Mediocrity is rampant. So it's not a problem with philosophy per se.

[Agathon]

Philosophers are doing good work in bioethical comitees.

I've tried this one before. His response was that hospitals were private businesses and that whatever the owners decided was what was ethical.

[Dinner]

I hate it when good threads degenerate into threads like this one.

[Agathon]

It's an Asher troll, what do you expect?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
And who did a lot of philosophy, so much so that he is obsessed with it.

Not my point at all -- my original point, many threads ago, is that you don't need to study "philosophy" in school to be a philosopher. The best ones weren't.

Not many people do philosophy as a major. Many more take it as a support. I should know, I teach them. Most people who go into advanced study end up doing teaching and research.

So in what respect did you disagree with my assertion that the only reason to take a philosophy degree was to teach it?

It's insane to say that this has no influence on society. If you knew anything, you'd know that Rawls' ideas have been the most influential political ideas of the last half century, with the possible exception of Hayek, who is supposed to be an economist, but is as much a political philosopher.

So can we credit Rawls with the current political trend in the US to authoritarian religion?

If he's influenced politics so much, why is it still the same old ****?

I don't care that you don't care.

Quite a lengthy post for someone who doesn't care, don't you think?

People are interested in it. Similarly, people are interested in hunting down and characterizing the various forms of bugs that inhabit remote regions. Neither of these activities has a high probability of generating something that most people would find useful, but that's not the point, people are interested in them for their own sake.

I'm sure some people are interested in necrophelia as well. Should we offer courses in how to perform necrophelia?

Courses in theology are religious courses. I don't care if people are interested in it, I'm not banning any sort of private institution. If they are interested in it, they can pay for it.

Theology is not something I want my tax dollars going to, period. By the same token, I don't want my money going to any churches, either. Nor any bible colleges.

For example, both economists and philosophers study game theory. Philosophers and historians study Plato. Mathematicians and philosophers study formal logic. Mathematicians and economists also have common ground. Linguists and philosophers are both interested in the nature of language.

Some great examples here.

Philosophy regarding history --> History dept.
Formal logic --> Math dept.
Economics is an applied mathematics which dabbles in theory, so that cooperation makes sense.

I don't see any reason for a Philosophy department to be on its own. The Philosophy majors I know study it because they think it sets them on a plateau about everyone else, and for no other reason.

They're the idiots that try to start an argument when I say I need a drink. "Do you really need a drink?"..

Each discipline has common ground, but clusters the issues in different relational sets.

That's why you find philosophers being referenced in English Lit (try reading some of Chaucer for example) and why you find historical contexts for ideas given in philosophy books.

This is because "philosophy" is part of everything we do. Which is precisely why it doesn't need its own faculty to have a circle-jerk over the ethics of saving burning babies.

Because Plato has more in common with Bertrand Russell than he does with Herodotus. And because the some of topics that Plato raises are still live concerns. You cannot understand Plato historically unless you understand him philosophically, because you need philosophical tools to understand what he is saying (you also need literary tools as well - that's why it is so difficult, despite looking easy to the untrained eye).

You don't need "philosophical tools", you need a frickin' brain. Philosophy classes are all about trying to teach viable thinking methods to people who shouldn't have gained admission to university in the first place.

For example, the Philosophy of Logic courses. Dear God. Welcome to elementary school.

This plays into my point -- the great philosophers never had someone teach them "philosophy". Which is why I think it's stupid you're defending the presense of philosophy courses by citing people who've never taken a philosophy course in their life.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I hate it when good threads degenerate into threads like this one.

The problem was, Agathon couldn't argue with any substantive subject matter.

This is all him trying to defend the integrity of his studies. He knows there is no possible way to defend Carly Fiorina.

[Asher]

Originally posted by nostromo
Who ever said that? Philosophy doesn't dictate anything. It doesn't tell you to live that way or that way. Philosophy isn't about dictating, it's about finding a rationale for our ethical beliefs. What is the foundation of our ethical beliefs, what is the consequence of holding this or that ethical belief?

And what is the usefulness of that?

Most ethics are based on anything but rational thought. They're based on people's morals, and in most cases, a book of fiction written many years ago, bastardized by countless translations.

[Asher]

Originally posted by nostromo
So basically you're saying philosophy was useful, but it's not useful anymore. It sorta ran out of steam. I don't agree. Here are some example:

- Philosophers are doing good work in bioethical comitees.

How so?

Are they the kind of people who say it's not okay for stem cell research? Or are they the kind of people who say it's okay for stem cell research?

Here's an idea: It doesn't matter what the philosophers think.

- Philosopher's who study the mind work closely with psychologists, neurobiologists, computer scientists, etc. to further our understanding of the mind. The study of the human mind is an interdisciplinary undertaking, and it includes philosophy.

How so?

- Philosophers like Austin and Searle developed speech act theory, which was adopted afterwards by linguists.

Don't get me started on linguists. Long story short, their work is done.

Those are examples that come to mind. That said, I agree with you when you say that most philosophers are mediocre. But remember that we can say the same of every other discipline. Mediocrity is rampant. So it's not a problem with philosophy per se.

The vast, vast majority of philosophy majors are beyond mediocre. "Useless" is the word that comes to mind.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Not my point at all -- my original point, many threads ago, is that you don't need to study "philosophy" in school to be a philosopher. The best ones weren't.

Wrong.

So in what respect did you disagree with my assertion that the only reason to take a philosophy degree was to teach it?

Because people will take it before going to law school. Others may do more advanced work simply because they want to. Doing a PhD usually means you want to do research.

So can we credit Rawls with the current political trend in the US to authoritarian religion?

Why don't you try reading him before you say silly things?

If he's influenced politics so much, why is it still the same old ****?

ditto

Quite a lengthy post for someone who doesn't care, don't you think?

I just enjoy watching you dig yourself into a hole.

I'm sure some people are interested in necrophelia as well. Should we offer courses in how to perform necrophelia?

1. Necrophilia is immoral.

2. You don't need state support to engage in it, you merely need a spade.

Courses in theology are religious courses. I don't care if people are interested in it, I'm not banning any sort of private institution. If they are interested in it, they can pay for it.

Theology is not something I want my tax dollars going to, period. By the same token, I don't want my money going to any churches, either. Nor any bible colleges.

I don't want my tax dollars going to silly Santa parades and mendicant athletes. But that is the social contract again.

Philosophy regarding history --> History dept.
Formal logic --> Math dept.
Economics is an applied mathematics which dabbles in theory, so that cooperation makes sense.

I don't see any reason for a Philosophy department to be on its own. The Philosophy majors I know study it because they think it sets them on a plateau about everyone else, and for no other reason.

Because you conveniently ignored the point I made. This is a common tactic of yours - pretend something doesn't exist, or doesn't exist in the form it actually does.

I've been to phil talks attended by people from all sorts of departments, even physics, and talks given in other departments are often attended by us.

You can choose to ignore the interdisciplinary nature of universities and you can choose to ignore the fact that philosophy departments relate various issues to each other in ways that other departments do not, and they likewise with respect to philosophy. That's what happens.

You can choose to ignore those facts, but that would make you ignorant.

They're the idiots that try to start an argument when I say I need a drink. "Do you really need a drink?".

They probably don't like you.

This is because "philosophy" is part of everything we do. Which is precisely why it doesn't need its own faculty to have a circle-jerk over the ethics of saving burning babies.

I can't remember when mind/brain reductionism was part of common parlance.

You don't need "philosophical tools", you need a frickin' brain. Philosophy classes are all about trying to teach viable thinking methods to people who shouldn't have gained admission to university in the first place.

Blah blah blah....

For example, the Philosophy of Logic courses. Dear God. Welcome to elementary school.

Basic logic is relatively easy for me. Some people find it hard. Then again, some compsci students find English lit hard.

This plays into my point -- the great philosophers never had someone teach them "philosophy". Which is why I think it's stupid you're defending the presense of philosophy courses by citing people who've never taken a philosophy course in their life.

They did.

Plato (student of Socrates, and the Heracleiteans)
Aristotle (Plato's student)
Kant (Konigsberg University, studied under philosophers there)
Wittgenstein (studie under Russell)
Locke (Oxford)
Aquinas (University of Naples)
Hume (Edinburgh)

etc.


You have proved neither that philosophy is useless, or even that if it had no practical use at all that it would be not worth doing.

Lame.

[Nostromo]

And what is the usefulness of that?

Most ethics are based on anything but rational thought. They're based on people's morals, and in most cases, a book of fiction written many years ago, bastardized by countless translations.

What are you saying? That ethics shouldn't be based on rational thought? Or that it can't be based on rational thought? I happen to think that it should be based on rational thought. I also think that it can be based, up to a certain point, on rational thought.

[Agathon]

What are you saying? That ethics shouldn't be based on rational thought? Or that it can't be based on rational thought? I happen to think that it should be based on rational thought. I also think that it can be based, up to a certain point, on rational thought.

Asher is a naive relativist and finds it inconceivable that anyone might disagree with him.

That's why his threads just consist of endless repetitions of his opinions (it's OK to discriminate against smokers, bad against homosexuals, because it just is, etc.).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Wrong.

I think there's something lacking in this response -- is it substance?

Why don't you try reading him before you say silly things?

ditto

Ohhh, I get to explain something else to the philosopher.

I asked the questions because I have no idea. You should answer them, not say I'm saying silly things.

1. Necrophilia is immoral.

2. You don't need state support to engage in it, you merely need a spade.

What if I believe religion itself is immoral?

As for #2: You don't need state support to engage in philosophy either.

I don't want my tax dollars going to silly Santa parades and mendicant athletes. But that is the social contract again.

Nonsense. You have every right to oppose spending money on those as well.

Grow a spine.

You can choose to ignore the interdisciplinary nature of universities and you can choose to ignore the fact that philosophy departments relate various issues to each other in ways that other departments do not, and they likewise with respect to philosophy. That's what happens.

You can choose to ignore those facts, but that would make you ignorant.

University is interdiscplinary, but that is no argument for having its own department. If different bits and pieces are used by different departments, that's not a justification for its existance as a separate entity.

I can't remember when mind/brain reductionism was part of common parlance.

What is mind/brain reductionism used in, and Intertheoretic Identification, aside from a tool in sounding like a pompous ass?

Blah blah blah....

Which philosophical tool is this?

Basic logic is relatively easy for me. Some people find it hard. Then again, some compsci students find English lit hard.

English lit is a joke. There is no right or wrong, just what the prof wants to hear. It's a psychology course more than anything else.

You have proved neither that philosophy is useless, or even that if it had no practical use at all that it would be not worth doing.

Lame.

It's hard to prove something is useless, when it has many uses -- all of which have no use themselves.

The problem is you find a justification for what you guys do today, none of which is really evident.

Like that guy who influenced politics -- how is that a good thing when there's nothing I despise more than politics?