Re: Philosophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it

From: Steve Nichols (steve@multisell.com)
Date: Fri Dec 22 2000 - 13:41:10 MST


Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 21:44:33 -0000
From: "zeb haradon" <zebharadon@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Philosophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it

>From: "Steve Nichols" <steve@multisell.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: <extropians@extropy.com>
>Subject: Re: Philosophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it
>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:06:19 -0000

>
S>Didn't Russell and Whitehead show that 'logic' supplied the
S>rules underlying both mathematics and language in Principia
S>Mathematica ... maths is purely logically, and cannot be
S>"proven by science empirically."

>How do you know?
>If you want to resist philosophy, then stop thinking about that question
>right now, you'd need philosophical concepts to answer it.

No I don't, just clear thinking ... no philosophical training needed!

>Isn't logic a subset of philosophy? It was in the philosophy department at
>my college. I'm sure you know Russell was an academic philosopher.

Maybe it was, but academic philosophers would like to think that
every academic pursuit is a subset of philosophy! Russell was a CND
campaigner, I suppose that makes him a politician as well ... and he
started out as a mathematician .... I am not sure labels are that helpful.

>Philosophy suffers the same problem AI does. Once you solve the problem,
>it's not considered philosophy anymore.

What solved problems do you have in mind here?

>Philosophy is the fertilizer, the
>brainstorming room. The best results from there (and it takes a sometimes
>millennia to get them) are then passed on to the appropriate department.

Most academic research runs on a much tighter timescale ... are you sure
that the "appropriate department" or even the Institution itself will still
be
around to benefit from these breakthroughs from the Philosophy department
after 1,000's of years?

You are correct in pointing out that philosophy is fertilizer!!!!! Utter
bullshit.

>You
>might be surprised to find that Descartes ("I think therefore I am" is what
>he's most famous for) wrote extensively on meteorology, mechanics,
>physiology, etc. Aristotle wrote extensively on biology, Plato on
>government.

So what is your point here? These thinkers owe nothing to the narrow
and recent tradition of academic philosophy. When I dig for coal I am
a miner, when I study plants I am a botanist &c.

>The first debates about atoms were held among philosophers in
>Ancient Greece. Pythagora (spelling?), who discovered the Pythagorean
>theorem and many other facts about numbers, had a cult of philosophy
>students whose behavior was in some respects more bizarre then the Heaven's
>Gate castration comet suicide cult.

Pythagorean magicians might dispute your claiming of Pythagoras for
academic philosophy .....

>Newton was considered a philosopher who
>solved the greatest philosophical problem of his time, the motion of the
>planets.

Newton and Descartes were both alchemists, and Descartes' best
friend Beckman was a well known astrologer .... so why not
categorise them as occultists instead of philosophers, physicists,
or scientists .... I think the best thinkers are able to spread their nets
widely, and so will be read across the board in the knowledge of
their day.

>The reason that the field of philosophy has narrowed so much over
>the past few thousands of years is that it has been so successful. It's
>solved so many of its problems that they can now be dealt with by
>non-philosophers.

No, other disciplines got frustrated from being bogged down in philosophy
departments and hived off! The issues (for instance in Psychology) remain,
but are now being solved by professional experimenters not by amateur
armchair theorists.

Philosophy didn't really exist as a distinct academic discipline until TH
Green
and other Clergy in the C19th .... Descartes would not have been in a
"philosophy" department, because there were just two faculties .. theology
and (natural) philosophy .... all the science and maths had this catch-all
heading. I like interdisciplinary approaches and feel academia would benefit
from being less divided in the modern age.

S> >It seems to me that all theory is philosophy, and the scientific
S> >method converts theory (possible fantasy) into fact (provable
S> >reality).
>
S>You are stretching the term "philosophy" to a ludicrous extent.

>When you think "philosophy", think "pre-natal science".

But the priesthood from the land of Khem invented chemistry &
maths, plus astronomy, so when you think "magick" think proto-science.

>
S>A question for you defenders of academic philosopher: name
S>just one (real world, useful) problem solved by philosophy in
S>the past 100 years? Or name a single theory universally agreed
S>by academic philosophers?
>

>Are you suggesting that universal agreement is equivalent to truth? It's
>not. There are a number of problems I consider "solved" which are not
agreed
>upon at all. For example, the question of the purpose of life, the question
>of whether God exists, and the question of what is the value of truth.

No, but if it is *objectively* true, then there will surely be tacit
agreement.
"What is the value of truth" is a generalised pseudo-question.

>But, for philosophy problems solved with general agreement in the past 100
>years, Quantum and Atomic Physics answered (partially) questions asked
>thousands of years ago by Atomism. Calculus (I'm going back a few hundred,
I
>know) gives the tools to mathematically solve problems about time and
motion
>posed thousands of years ago by Zeno. Eventually, (some) questions about
>consciousness will be answered by the departments already starting to take
>it over from philosophy and do empirical research, which is psychology.

Consciousness has been sorted by MVT!!! To my satisfaction at very least.

>You're looking for problems which have been solved to the satisfaction of
>experts, but which are still considered philosophical problems, but this is
>impossible by the definition of "philosophy", for reasons outlined above.
>Once it's put in a way that allows it to be addressed by empirical or
>mathematical methods, it's no longer considered philosophy.

So why not give the problems direct to the relevant other departments
to get a speedy resolution? Cut out the time-wasting middlemen.

> It can take
>thousands of years and thousands of philosophers to reach that point. Would
>you criticize the value of Kindergarten by asking "name a single useful
book
>written by or invention invented by a Kindergartener", well, none while
they
>were still in Kindergarden.

Yes, I think Philosophy can be covered in kindergarten! I do accept
"History of Philosophy" as a valid academic category. But "critical
thinking skills" should be hived off to debating societies and rhetoric
study on the one hand, and something like speed-Shogi to improve
problem solving, strategic ability and mental alertness on the other.

S>I am yet to be convinced that transhuman thought is any more
S>than a waiting room for the posthuman world. The convergence
S>"singularity" might never happen, so why not get on with establishing
S>posthuman society now? Human, conventionalist philosophers have
>failed to engage with the public ... I can think of none who is a
S>house-hold name or who has any particular wisdom to convey to
S>the common masses ... academic philosophy is turgid and
S>unimportant. Or am I missing something?

>Yes, the "common masses" are not a gauge of anything.

Socrates used to give his orations in the marketplace ... and the
medievalists held the model of "everyman" fairly central in their debates.

>Can you name a single transhumanist who is a household name, who can engage
>with the public more then any academic philosopher?

But Philosophy departments have had 100+ years start ... I became posthuman
only
during the 1980's, and transhuman thought didn't really get going until the
1990's.
I fully intend to become a household name though ...... as should other
afterhumans.

>Does that mean it's >turgid and unimportant?
>Can you name any biochemist who is a household name?

Crick and Watson? I take your point ... but biochemistry is by its nature a
specialist
and technical discipline and the average Joe cannot be expected to
understand the
intricacies of it. Philosophy claims to be addressing big universal
questions that are
understood by all, and should be able to decant the philosophical jargon and
contortions back to common language explanations that can enthuse everyone.

I think Russell (and AJ Ayer, my old Prof.) were the last to be well known
in the UK.
The challenge as I see it is to hive off (solve) what remains of academic
philosophy,
since as you have pointed out it progress involves questions being
" put in a way that allows it to be addressed by empirical or
>mathematical methods, it's no longer considered philosophy."

A couple of "End of Year" questions:
Should posthumans aim to evolve into a separate and distinctive species (or
strand) ..... or should the aim be to 'upgrade' the "common masses" to
posthuman?
I am aware of some posthuman 'communities' growing up
outside of normal society ... and in support of this "advance guard"
strategy
is that if "Trans(itional) Human" is to mean anything at all, then there
should be
discernable demarcation between transhumance & common humans .... and an
even greater demarcation between humans and post-humans.

My challenge to orthodox philosophy is in order to bring about an
intertheoretic
AND an interdisciplinary reduction to make things more efficient. Sure,
preserve
"History of Philosophy" by all means, but let us establish a credible
"Afterhuman
Aesthetic" or "school of philosophy" to challenge the creaky old received
norms.

>Level Up
>www.steve-nichols.com
Post-occult Philosopher



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:39 MDT