= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_M comments on Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (770)
Is there any philosophy worth reading?
As far as I can tell, a great deal of "philosophy" (basically the intellectuals' wastebasket taxon) consists of wordplay, apologetics, or outright nonsense. Consequently, for any given philosophical work, my prior strongly favors not reading it because the expected benefit won't outweigh the cost. It takes a great deal of evidence to tip the balance.
For example: I've heard vague rumors that GWF Hegel concludes that the Prussian State (under which, coincidentally, he lived) was the best form of human existence. I've also heard that Descartes "proves" that God exists. Now, whether or not Hegel or Descartes may have had any valid insights, this is enough to tell me that it's not worth my time to go looking for them.
However, at the same time I'm concerned that this leads me to read things that only reinforce the beliefs I already have. And there's little point in seeking information if it doesn't change your beliefs.
It's a complicated question what purpose philosophy serves, but I wouldn't be posting here if I thought it served none. So my question is: What philosophical works and authors have you found especially valuable, for whatever reason? Perhaps the recommendations of such esteemed individuals as yourselves will carry enough evidentiary weight that I'll actually read the darned things.
Yoreth:
That's an extremely bad way to draw conclusions. If you were living 300 years ago, you could have similarly heard that some English dude named Isaac Newton is spending enormous amounts of time scribbling obsessive speculations about Biblical apocalypse and other occult subjects -- and concluded that even if he had some valid insights about physics, it wouldn't be worth your time to go looking for them.
The value of Newton's theories themselves can quite easily be checked, independently of the quality of his epistemology.
For a philosopher like Hegel, it's much harder to dissociate the different bits of what he wrote, and if one part looks rotten, there's no obvious place to cut.
(What's more, Newton's obsession with alchemy would discourage me from reading whatever Newton had to say about science in general)
A bad way to draw conclusions. A good way to make significant updates based on inference.
Would you be so kind as to spell out the exact sort of "update based on inference" that applies here?
???
"People who say stupid things are, all else being equal, more likely to say other stupid things in related areas".
That's a very vague statement, however. How exactly should one identify those expressions of stupid opinions that are relevant enough to imply that the rest of the author's work is not worth one's time?
In the context of LessWrong it should be considered trivial to the point of outright patronising if not explicitly prompted. Bayesian inference is quite possibly the core premise of the community.
In the process of redacting my reply I coined the term "Freudian Double-Entendre". Given my love of irony I hope the reader appreciates my restraint! <-- Example of a very vague statement. In fact if anyone correctly follows that I expect I would thoroughly enjoy reading their other comments.
Nobody knows (obviously), but you can try to train your intuition to do that well. You'd expect this correlation to be there.
Yep, and note that Hegel's philosophy is related to states more than Newton's physics is related to the occult.