You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Matt_Simpson comments on LW Philosophers versus Analytics - Less Wrong Discussion

38 Post author: potato 28 November 2011 03:40PM

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

Comments (84)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 28 November 2011 07:44:48PM 16 points [-]

I mean most experienced LWers probably really haven't read very much Kant, maybe some Wittgenstein or Quine...

Public service announcement: don't read Kant.

Comment author: Karmakaiser 29 November 2011 05:08:48PM 15 points [-]

Implicit in your statement is that Kant can be read.

Comment author: potato 30 November 2011 09:10:31PM *  1 point [-]

LOL, I agree BTW. You probaby shouldn't read Kant if you already have LW, unless you are interested in the history of philosophy for its own sake.

But Kant isn't meaningless. The guy really was quite competent, and well read. And if nothing else, it is to his credit that he nearly created boolean logic in his formal terminology for logic. Read Kant's logic, and you will find almost every inference you can derive from boole, and rules for how to combine these inferences. His logic is the closest thing I've seen to formal logic before formal logic, and that was about a century before boole; that's at least worth mention.