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

From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Sun Dec 31 2000 - 12:07:10 MST


From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
When Max says the Extropian Principals is a philosophy,
> or Mike talks about his philosophies about personal right-to-carry
> laws, these are not the kind of bad philosophy you are describing.
> But they may still use the word "philosophy".

I'll go along with that. It's just a matter of usage preference.
You could as easily call the Principles a reasoned doctrine.

> The same applies to your concept of asking the wrong question. I
> don't think any question is bad, only some answers. If I ask how
> phlogiston works, this is not a bad question, as long as the answer
> is "it is a theoretical substance possessing negative weight
> according to a theory that has since been proven false." Instead of
> quibbling over whether the question is good or bad, I think it is
> more useful to determine whether the answer is good or bad.

I think it would be most useful to determine if the answer is of any use.
Of course, if the question is incorrect, then the only useful answer would
be one that succeeds in showing this wrongness.

If philosophy is the art of asking the wrong questions, the art of
answering the wrong questions probably constitutes an allied art. While
the-art-of-asking-the-wrong-questions is not as wrong as the art of
priestcraft, I think it's more wrong than
the-art-of-asking-the-correct-questions, IOW, the scientific method.

Stay hungry,

--J. R.
3M TA3

=====================
Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind,
free will



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:44 MDT