John_Maxwell_IV comments on Philosophy Needs to Trust Your Rationality Even Though It Shouldn't - Less Wrong

27 Post author: lukeprog 29 November 2012 09:00PM

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

Comments (169)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: John_Maxwell_IV 30 November 2012 09:03:04AM *  2 points [-]

Are some philosophical questions questions about reality? If so, what does it take for a question about reality to count as "philosophical" as opposed to "scientific"? Are these just empirical clusters?

And if it's not a fact about reality, what does it mean to get it right?

Comment author: ygert 01 December 2012 07:24:58PM 0 points [-]

I think the point is not to think of questions as philosophical or not, but rather look at the people trying to solve these questions. This post is talking about how the people called "philosophers" are not effective at solving these problems, and as such that they should change their approach. In fact, a large part of the Sequences are attempting to solve questions which you might think of as "philosophical" and have in the past been worked on by philosophers. But what this post says is that the correct way to look at these (or any other) problems is to look at them in a rational way (like EY did in writing the Sequences) and not in the way most people (specifically the class of people known as "philosophers") have tried to solve them in the past.