= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant - 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 (510)
I didn't say Kant was only relevant to Kripke. He was hugely influential.
Re-reading my post, it wasn't clear that I was asking you for other examples, so I apologize for that. Would you mind giving other examples of relevant ideas for which a prior knowledge of Kant is absolutely necessary?
Eg. the whole of German Idealism. Believe it or not, philosophy educators have a reasonably good idea of what they are doing.
Having dropped a double major in philosophy, I'm inclined to take the side of "not."
Having read a lot of bad attempted philosophy by scientists, I'm inclined to think phil. doens't need replacement by, or oversight from, science
But most of the really brilliant philosophers have come from a scientific background! For example, I don't think 20th-century philosophy would have accomplished nearly as much without Wittgenstein. And Aristotle wouldn't have gotten anywhere if he hadn't spent all those years cataloging plants and animals.
Is a fairly self contained subject. You could go through a degree or two without ever touching upon it unless you had to study Hegel for unrelated reasons. So, I don't see any reason he wouldn't be taught during the course or in a course of his own which is a prerequisite for the GI course, rather than in Phil 101.
Some do, some don't, generalizing is fun.