Comment author: lukeprog 05 December 2012 07:05:13AM 11 points [-]

maybe you should reframe your posts (or at least future ones) as being aimed at amateur philosophers, autodidacts, CS and math majors interested in doing FAI research, and the like?

Yes, this is my intention. I don't think I can reform how philosophy is taught at universities quickly enough to make a difference. My purpose, then, is to help "amateur philosophers, autodidacts, CS and math majors interested in doing FAI research" so that they can become better philosophical thinkers outside the university system, and avoid being mind-poisoned by a standard philosophical education.

Comment author: id10t 08 December 2012 05:20:45PM 1 point [-]

I appreciate your sentiment; I'm one of those people who actually got an undergraduate degree in Philosophy. Ivory tower thinking has been detrimental to philosophy but the changes your purposing would destroy philosophy education as its been practiced for well over 2000 years.

Maybe you think that's a good thing, having been through the education I do not. Philosophy, or rather the study of old dead philosophers, is not for the sake of their ideas but for the developing of a thought paradigm. The course you would be creating is not philosophy, instead it is something more akin to, "How does science explain reality?"

Moreover, most disciplines were birthed in philosophy, eventually becoming its own discipline and there there's the whole philosopher-mathematician love affair because two have been linked pretty closely for awhile . There's a reason why you get a PhD (Doctorate of Philosophy).

So in essence, you went and cherry-picked stupid abstracts to prove your point. Yes, there are many ivory-tower philosophers who are adding nothing to our knowledge base. But no, the answer is not to sink the ship.

Go spend three months with Hegel's Phenomonolgy of Spirit; it won't change how you view the world but it'll sharpen your mind; same goes for Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Comment author: RobbBB 04 December 2012 08:39:18PM *  19 points [-]

I think you'd have an easier time justifying the thesis 'Kant was wrong about everything' than 'Kant was not super-super-crazy-influential.' Consider:

Kant ⇒ Schopenhauer ⇒ Nietzsche ⇒ all the postmodernists and relativists

Kant ⇒ Schopenhauer ⇒ Wittgenstein ⇒ most of the positivists

Kant ⇒ Schopenhauer ⇒ Nietzsche ⇒ Freud

Kant ⇒ Fichte ⇒ Hegel ⇒ Marx

Kant ⇒ von Mises ⇒ the less fun libertarians

My conclusion, by Six-Degrees-of-Hitler/Stalin/RonPaul ratiocination, is that Kant is directly and personally responsible for every atrocity of the 20th century.

Comment author: id10t 08 December 2012 05:08:25PM 1 point [-]

This was quite possibly the best interwebs post I've seen in a long time ... if you don't start making these t-shirts, I will!