= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake 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)
The tech schools have had excellent philosophy departments. It's no accident that Judith Jarvis Thomson taught at MIT.
If I was looking into majoring in philosophy and I was possibly interested in this new-fangled portion of it, you're saying tech schools are the way to go?
I do not know that specifically.
However, the advice I would give to anyone thinking of majoring in philosophy is: don't major in philosophy.
That said, I don't think it matters too much what you major in. The main benefit of a liberal arts degree is the liberal arts part - being exposed to people from many different disciplines with different ways of thinking, being forced to take them seriously for a while, and getting a chance to see the connections between them.
Really, if you want to major in something, you should take the opportunity to learn a skill, or else to take advantage of machinery that you'll only find in a university. There are things that you can learn in college, like how to mix chemicals in a lab or how to make pottery, that are difficult to learn without the proper facilities. And if you do prefer learning academic subjects in a class, remember that math and computing are good bases for everything.
You can read philosophy on your own time, and if you're reasonably intelligent then reading it in a class probably won't help. A philosophy club might be a good idea - those are often as good as seminar classes.
In my opinion, your comment is a very valuable kind of philosophy. You make clear statements in plain language about expected results from doing things in the real world. If a "newfangled" philosophy has a technical end, I would like the non-technical end to look like training in writing this way.
Yes, though it would be better-written if I'd instead trained in writing and it would be more useful if I'd been able to link to empirical research demonstrating the effects I just baldly asserted. My training in philosophy did seem to make me better at sounding like I know what I'm talking about when I tell other people what to do.
If you can describe the methods of sounding authoritative, I think it would be very valuable, whether as a contribution to understanding the dark arts or as a tool for increasing motivation. (Or does is it a skill of sounding right which doesn't actually motivate people?)
I've been wondering about the techniques ever since I noticed that Heinlein had a talent for sounding right.
Have you tried listening to the Onion Talks?
I hadn't heard of them, but I don't think the one you linked to is a very good example of sounding authoritative.
I profess to have a skill at sounding right, but I did not learn a lot of theory.
The empirical research is nice for footnotes, but I honestly don't know how you could've written it better.
Thanks, but I can describe at least in general terms how I could have written it better...
I could have arranged the words so that they form pleasing patterns when spoken aloud. The first sentence uses the word "that" which might be confusing to some readers, especially seeing the comment permalink without context - I could have spelled out briefly what the subject was. The rhetorical "However" at the beginning of the second "paragraph" serves a useful stylistic purpose, but will turn off some readers who think it's improper. Ditto with making "paragraphs" of fewer than two sentences. "Different people with different ways of thinking" places undue emphasis on the repeated word "different", and it would probably be better to use more specific words in each case. I could have taken into consideration what the purpose of writing that comment was and tailored the rhetoric specifically to that purpose - if I wanted to convince someone not to major in philosophy, there are some extra facts about philosophy I could have dug up to make it hit home harder. A superintelligence might be able to create a basilisk-string that would insert the knowledge directly into your mind.
And those ideas are without significant training or practice as a writer. If I couldn't do better with training, then there's significant low-hanging fruit out there for improving writer training.
Actually, I agree with all this. Phil is a great hobby. No special equipment is required and you can do it anywhere.