= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on A reply to Mark Linsenmayer about philosophy - 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 (68)
It would be useful to have a list of such positons which are still taken seriously by anglophone philosophy. FYI Hegel, Heidegger, Berkely and other easy targets generally aren't.
But science gains benefits from using categories that are artficially tidy compared to folk concepts.Thus a tomato is not a scientific vegetable, nor a whale a scientific fish. Why shouldn't philosophy do the same?
According to the PhilPapers survey results, 4.3% believe in idealism (i.e. Berkeley-style reality).
A lot of those probably aren't advocating subjective idealism. Kantian views ('transcendental idealism'), Platonistic views ('platonic idealism'), Russellian views ('phenomenalism'), and Hegelian views ('objective idealism') are frequently called 'idealism' too. In the early 20th century, 'idealism' sometimes degraded to such an extent that it seemed to mean little more than the declaration 'I hate scientism and I think minds are interesting and weird'.
It's also worth noting that Peter probably had analytic philosophy in mind when he said 'Anglophone'. Most of the idealists in the survey are probably in the continental or historically Kantian tradition.