Andrew comments on You don't need Kant - Less Wrong

21 Post author: Andrew 01 April 2009 06:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (56)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jack 01 April 2009 10:25:41PM 10 points [-]

"One of the annoying things about philosophy is that the dead simply don't die. Once a philosopher or philosophical doctrine gains some celebrity in the community, it's very difficult to convince anyone afterward that said philosopher or doctrine was flawed. In other words, the philosophical community tends to have problems with relinquishment. Therefore, there are still many philosophers that spend their careers studying, for example, Plato, apparently not with the intent to determine what parts of what Plato wrote are correct or still applicable, but rather with the intent to defend Plato from criticism. To prove Plato was right."

I don't know what kind of background you have in philosophy but in my experience this is just wrong. There is not a single philosopher in my department that fits this description and I have never met anyone who does. I'm not even sure where you get this perception. Its true that past philosophers are routinely referenced but this is just because its sometimes easier to use the concepts of ones predecessors rather than reinvent the wheel. But read any metaphysics written in the last fifty years and and you'll find dead philosophers are only used to refer to common positions or as less wrong theories that make decent jumping off points for better theories.

Comment author: Andrew 02 April 2009 01:09:46AM 1 point [-]

I used Plato as an example of this because the first example that came to mind was classical philosophy, or at least the parts of it that aren't more properly philology.

I'm generalizing over my experiences at philosophy conferences, mainly in the Midwestern United States, and my reading of various philosophical journals. I'm basing my claim on, among other things, what seems to be the common practice of classifying some philosophers as for example "Kant scholars", "Continentals", etc. It's possible I'm wrong. I'm not a professional philosopher. I still think many philosophers think this way. That's where I get this perception.