http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
Thoughts on this essay? /lit/ is chimping out over it and I think they're being retarded.
>>301812
Before posting a link could you at least give some context? The general summary of the article and is it worth reading?
>>301832
stemlord tries his hand at philosophy
>>301812
>someone who himself admits he doesn't understand philosophy tries to describe it and pinpoint its problems
>>301832
A guy with a BA in philosophy, masters and Phd in computer science from harvard (although accused of being a stemfag by lit) basically says that most philosophy since aristotle was rubbish. and aristotle's metaphysics was well intentioned but made big mistakes in its methods.
/lit/ is chimping out with the "I am the warrior of my own daydreams! Just because my sentences have no truth function it doesn't mean my philosophy isn't worthwhile" schtick.
>>301812
>This singularity is even more singular in having its own defense built in. When things are hard to understand, people who suspect they're nonsense generally keep quiet.
What are constant schisms within philosophy
What is philosophers constantly trying to disprove each other
face it fags
Metaphilosophy tells us that philosophy is indeed outdated both academically and socially.
1. All philosophy questions can be inquired within other realms of academia that appeals to logic and scientific methods.
2. The power structure linked to academia simply doesn't need more general intellectuals.
look up Wittgenstein's ladder. Philosophy BTFO
When AI comes along, math will be no longer bounded by human cognition.
There are two kinds of intellectuals, general and specific. General intellectuals(Dawkins, Chomsky) are philosophers and writers who pull shit out of their asses. Specific intellectuals emerged after WWII. They are granted a lot more power (think Oppenheimer & Graham) but they too, are subject to "divide and conquer" by the power structure.
pic related: general intellectual
>>301917
>All philosophy questions can be inquired within other realms of academia that appeals to logic and scientific methods.
Oh god, this again?
Since the dawn of proper science, 'intellectuals' have been trying to disprove the importance of philosophy without realizing that philosophy and science have two different goals entirely. This is neither original nor clever.
>>301928
>>301936
>Some philosophers (e.g. existentialists, pragmatists) think philosophy is ultimately a practical discipline that should help us lead meaningful lives by showing us who we are, how we relate to the world around us and what we should do.
>Others (e.g. analytic philosophers) see philosophy as a technical, formal, and entirely theoretical discipline, with goals such as "the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake".
I just did a quick glimpse of the text.
There are things that can't be solved by STEM.
Who is right over the best way to live life, Stoics, Epictureans or someone else?
>>301940
Philosophy is both those things depending on what questions you ask.
>>301840
>>301864
These things, pretty much.
He actually does make some decent points, philosophy is fairly garbled right now and could use some heavy restructuring as a field. Comparing it to math in the 1500s isn't too far off base (though a bit uncharitable, maybe from the 1800s instead). Sometimes it seems that a philosopher and a historian of philosophy are indistinguishable, and that strikes me as a bit odd.
However most of the article is a complaint that philosophy isn't "useful" enough, without any qualification of what "useful" entails (ironically, sussing that out would be a very useful philosophical task). Amusingly he seems to think math is quite a bit more useful, but he misses the fact that no mathematicians do math for it's usefulness, we find ways to apply math long after it is conceived.
In that vein of thought, philosophy has the potential to be very "useful" (in the sense of being applied). For example, Paul Graham might wanna give ol' Witty a shout out for developing his truth tables which helped make computer programming possible. And Paul said he didn't get much out of philosophic logic.
>TL;DR, Philosophy has some problems and is a bit archaic, but otherwise it's just a CompSci STEMfag complaining that philosophy isn't as useful as Calculus (the most applied math of applied maths)
>armchair philosophers on suicide watch
>>301953
That's a pretty succinct explanation and I agree. Everyone and their mother knows that philosophy has grown out of control in certain aspects, but his premise seems to be based on social utility, a philosophical construct.
It really isn't surprising how a 21st century man, who is a venture capitalist and rich as hell, thinks that philosophy is pointless and dead, because he thinks that the most valuable pursuit in life is to keep investing his already gross fortune on more things that will make him richer.
Philosophy is needed more now than ever, because everyone thinks that the default way to live life or to judge your own value is to be a sycophant to the market, and how much money you make, and this guy proves it very succinctly.
>Philosophy is dead because I already know how to live life; get rich nigga.
>>301951
>>301949
>>301940
Scenario 1: Philosophy as a tool to find meaning in life.
No longer needed. We can use sociology, psychology, public policy or other empirical disciplines that don't factor in hurr durr muh feelings. Hell even those feelings can be explained by psychology
Scenario 2: Philosophy as pursuit of knowledge.
anglo-american philosophy is a precise science based logic. Philosophy of mind is covered by cognitive science. Physics is covered by physics. Metaphysics is covered by Kant. Philosophy of math will be covered by AI.
My rejection of philosophy is not based on ideology or transcendental dialectics.
>>301953
Critical Theory and humanities in general attack the positions of discourse instead offering any creative insights. This is telling of the academia in general. Like numerous identity politics studies, by focusing on the subject itself subtracts from the whole. The study of the humanities has become divorced from its productive aspect. The academic side of the humanities is dominated by non-participatory criticism, while most of the production of cultural works is done by outsiders with little or no formal education in what they produce.
Consider the difference between a philosopher and a philosophy student. Suppose a philosophy student today took issue with a particular point of Aristotle's. The student might type up an essay (or perhaps just a blog post) about how Aristotle wrote from a position of unacknowledged privilege, claiming that this diminished the validity of his point. He's critiqued Aristotle, but not advanced the field with a better idea. On the other hand, if a philosopher prior to the 20th century had a similar complaint, he would produce his own work that presented what he saw to be a more correct position. His object would be surpassing Aristotle on that point of argument, rather than just idle criticism.
>>302009
How in the blazes will sociology or psychology give you a meaning or tell you how to live your life?
>>302063
meaningness.com is a good place to start.
I come from a post-rationalist position that acknowledges both intuition and reason.
>>302097
This sounds an awful lot like philosophy senpai desu.
>>302109
if A becomes A' == B
then A =/= B
>>302005
this
>muh work
>be productive goyim!
>>301949
> Best way to live life
Diogenes Brahma San.
Source: I live in a tent
>>302005
Materialism is not a sufficient rejection of philosophy.
>>302256
No, but it's easy for an economically privileged person to completely jettison everything of value in philosophy because it will never apply to him anyway.
>>302264
well materialism, as a philosophical meaning of life so to speak, whether he realizes or not, does apply to him
>>302294
It does, more so than others, but the point is that it's hypocritical to say that philosophy has no value, when you are literally the posterboy for capitalist materialism.
>>302005
>>302322
>>302391
>Being rich doesn't make you as happy as you think
>Kill yourself pinko, t. McCarthy.
Stay murrican, murrifag.
>>301917
>When AI comes along, math will be no longer bounded by human cognition.
lol
>>301949
You realize that, for example, Stoicism would pass the smell test that he proposed in his essay? Reading Stoic philosophy has caused many people to make meaningful changes in their lives, ergo it's not BS that gained influence from pretense and obfuscation.
>>301997
Social utility is the worst sort of construct though, because used without a robust underlying philosophy, it just means 'whatever horseshit society is up to, right now.'
>>304675
Stoicism is helping me get through really awful sciatica, not to mention a lot of other things. STEMfags just need to know where to look
>>304675
So Juche passes the smell test?
