Tweet
Look at it this way - when philosophers are of the right kind , they get out of the way of the scientists and technicians , and let them do the job of advancing science and civilisation . When they are bad , they hinder progress . Thus , the effects philosophers have had on society have , for the most part , been usually negative , thanks to them giving intellectual credence to junk .
What planet do you live on? Are you being purposely stupid or not.
You can say the same of scientists. When they do well, we benefit; when they do badly (think eugenics) we do badly.
And you have got to be kidding about the influence of philosophers being bad for society. The principles by which our societies are organized did not arise from nowhere: most of them were thought up by philosophers. The United States Constitution is an example of something that was lifted with very little modification from Locke's political philosophy. The guiding norms and expectations of our political thinking all come from the contractarian tradition and the work of people like Locke; Hobbes; and Rousseau. Before that, the standard way of thinking about politics was in Greek philosophical terms interpreted through the lens of Christianity.
A standard feature of the ignorant is that they believe that the political and moral ideas that seem obvious now were always so. A quick check of history shows that this was not the case. You have to be some kind of ignorant son of a ***** to think that it is. What makes philosophers look strange is that they say these things for years until they finally seep into society and become the norm. I had my students read Mill this year. They agreed with almost everything he said and couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't. Yet Mill was regarded by many of his time as a radical lunatic.
Similarly for our views about what a person is. Most educated people hold to a view of the person that could be best described as Descartes mixed with Freud. But people didn't always think this way, and they probably won't in 500 years.
In short the attitude of unphilosophical people is to take these things for granted – to live an unexamined life. It's a peculiar kind of intellectual conservatism and lack of imagination. It's the equivalent of the 50s Southern redneck who just thinks it is part of the natural order that blacks must be subservient.
Computer scientists , on the other hand , have enhanced the quality of human life tremendoucly almost everywhere.
Only by giving us gadgets. Sure they make life easier, but easier for what? To be a lazy idiot? To pursue pleasure above all else? To obey God? To seek human excellence? To do right?
Where else but in philosophy do you see the question of what makes a life run well asked? "Whatever you like" is not much of an answer because it invites the question "should you really like what you like?"
**How would you feel about driving a car designed by a team of people chosen for "people skills" , versus one designed by nerds/geeks/(negative asocial stereotype) who were geniuses in car design ?
How would you feel about living in a country run by people who had no "people skills"?
A telling case in point is this discussion itself - you can have it without philosphers ( though then the topic would not have come up ) , but not without the computer scientists who designed the systems that made it possible .
Really? The moral positions that people take on these things can usually have their origin traced back to some philosopher. Even relativism.
Comment