naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30317 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
I'm a bit torn on this question. On one hand I do want to show respect to philosophy, and artistically analyzing all the things it analyzes, but on the other I can't escape the impression that a lot of what it does is formalizing what people were already saying, thinking, and doing, adding a layer of obscurantism, and pretending you invented the thing yourself.
But I shall take your thesis and anti-thesis and synthesize them:
Philosophy is in large part the art of taking things people are already saying, feeling, thinking and doing and putting them in a coherent framework that can be used for further analysis and propagation.
We wouldn't charge mathematicians who create theories of existing fields of being bereft of insight. Why do we do so for philosophers? Is it just because they look a lot more pretentious? Or because they're talking about questions sufficiently exoteric that everyone has an opinion on them?
We wouldn't charge mathematicians who create theories of existing fields of being bereft of insight. Why do we do so for philosophers?
Pure maths people weep tears of blood as I type this, but having a practical application helps a lot.
Or because they're talking about questions sufficiently exoteric that everyone has an opinion on them?
That might be a part of it. See it's not that I want to dismiss philosophy as a field, it's the insistence that I should see the contribution of particular philosophers as valuable that something in me rebels against. I can tip my hat to Pythagoras, Leibniz, Boole, and the lot of them, because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to come up with what they came up with. If I jog my noggin, I could probably name some philosophers that made me go "huh, I never thought of that this way" and I can tip my hat to them too. But the ones that first make me go "I don't get it", and then, when someone explains it to me, makes me go "wait, that was it?", these guys make me rather annoyed. Why should their contribution be seen as more valuable than the local schizo at the pub? Because they were friends with aristocrats? Because they went to a fancy university?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Most landmarks of philosophy can be described in this reductionist way, it makes them no less significant.
I'm a bit torn on this question. On one hand I do want to show respect to philosophy, and artistically analyzing all the things it analyzes, but on the other I can't escape the impression that a lot of what it does is formalizing what people were already saying, thinking, and doing, adding a layer of obscurantism, and pretending you invented the thing yourself.
A common and valid critique of philosophy.
But I shall take your thesis and anti-thesis and synthesize them:
Philosophy is in large part the art of taking things people are already saying, feeling, thinking and doing and putting them in a coherent framework that can be used for further analysis and propagation.
We wouldn't charge mathematicians who create theories of existing fields of being bereft of insight. Why do we do so for philosophers? Is it just because they look a lot more pretentious? Or because they're talking about questions sufficiently exoteric that everyone has an opinion on them?
Pure maths people weep tears of blood as I type this, but having a practical application helps a lot.
That might be a part of it. See it's not that I want to dismiss philosophy as a field, it's the insistence that I should see the contribution of particular philosophers as valuable that something in me rebels against. I can tip my hat to Pythagoras, Leibniz, Boole, and the lot of them, because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to come up with what they came up with. If I jog my noggin, I could probably name some philosophers that made me go "huh, I never thought of that this way" and I can tip my hat to them too. But the ones that first make me go "I don't get it", and then, when someone explains it to me, makes me go "wait, that was it?", these guys make me rather annoyed. Why should their contribution be seen as more valuable than the local schizo at the pub? Because they were friends with aristocrats? Because they went to a fancy university?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link