= 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)
From whom? Do you know of some people who understand philosophy and can do it better than philosophers, but aren't philosphers?
I find that imprecise. Did you mean conceptual or numerical precision?
I'm not sure how to answer you, because I don't get how philosophy isn't a sketchbook/scrapbook for other fields (who don't even necessarily need outside sketchbooking/scrapbooking help).
Both?
Besides coming up with questions for science to answer, describing the history of ideas, and teaching people basic question-asking skills, what do we need philosophy for?
It isn't becuase it isn't just a vaguer way of addressing the same questions.
coming up with questions for philosphy to answer, teaching advanced question-ansering skills, etc.
Philosophy has answered questions?
Yes. Eg: "Is Logical Positivism a good idea?". Answer: no.
Philosophy has yet to answer what "good" or "idea" even mean with authority, so I'm gonna say no to this, although I don't disagree with your overall assertion.
I don't think the fine details of "good" and "idea" are relevant. What' relevant is that no-one does LP any more, and even its former adherents turned against it.