A philosophy site some might find interesting and helpful...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt their qualifications, but not much of what I read one one topic chosen more or less at random seemed like it was philosophy. It was just the opinion of a guy who happened to be a philosopher. Not a lot of supporting his reasoning, just a lot of assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read the "Is it ethical for surgeons to use economic considerations when setting their fees?" and so far it flows along those lines...

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be wrong to use simple supply-and-demand considerations where the supplier (the surgeon) charged the highest price the market will bear. Why? Because higher prices will exclude those with less money from the service, and I don't think it morally defensible to distribute essential medical services on the basis of wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't seem like an answer to the 'why' question except in the loosest sense. "I think X is wrong because it requires Y and I think Y is wrong." I was surprised to come to the end of his comments without an answer to the 'why' question and seemed like a dog chasing his tail.

Perhaps Y is a given, it didn't seem so to me and I tend to agree with his end position.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly how I read that reply, and what prompted my response.

Its entirely possible that I just happened to pick a really bad topic, and that the site as a whole is much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you got levelled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure how, but its always a very real possibility. My guard is way down in SMP.

[DrunkHamster]

Philo, just out of interest, what is your philosophy experience and background?

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
Philo, just out of interest, what is your philosophy experience and background?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an M.A. from Columbia and a Ph.D. from UCLA where I worked with Tyler Burge. I've taught for about 10 years. My main interests are in metaphysics, philosophy of mind and philosophy of language.

[kbfc]

This site is a wonderful benchmark for the continuing process of science making philosophy more and more worthless every day/year/century/etc. I'm pretty sure Hawking says something about this at the end of Brief History of Time, but I lent my copy out a few years ago, and apparently it hasn't made its way back to my shelf yet, so I can't provide the exact quote.

vhawk, I have to admit that, like you, maybe my "level guard" is down, but I got a good chuckle out of seeing a "professional philosopher" seriously devoting his efforts to a question about the ethics of switching between being a fan of the Yankees and Red Sox.

I spent an hour or so browsing responses in the various categories on the site, and I didn't find the entirety of the visit as intellectually interesting or stimulating as nearly any single sentence from The Selfish Gene, which I'm currently 6 chapters into.

[vhawk01]

I hope Philo's feeling aren't hurt by the response here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Its a neat resource, just not exactly what I expected.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Philo, just out of interest, what is your philosophy experience and background?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an M.A. from Columbia and a Ph.D. from UCLA where I worked with Tyler Burge. I've taught for about 10 years. My main interests are in metaphysics, philosophy of mind and philosophy of language.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL COMPLETELY-BACKFIRED-ATTEMPT-AT-AD-HOMINEMAMENTS

-edit- meh, i think I probably misinterpreted hamster's intent, my apologies sir

[kbfc]

This is somewhat of a hijack, and probably deserves it's own thread. I just don't know if I can stomach the discussion.

The whole notion of professional philosphy amuses me. As far as I can tell, the only things of value (using a generous definition) to come from the field these days are:
- teaching other people about philosophy,
- writing books filled with speculation and pseudoscientific vocabulary that would make even Michael Behe proud.

This link from the site sums it up nicely.

[ QUOTE ]
The source of the ability of the mind to form representations of things as being outside the mind is one of the great mysteries of philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Puke.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope Philo's feeling aren't hurt by the response here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Its a neat resource, just not exactly what I expected.

[/ QUOTE ]

awk, philo knows us, np.
It is rather neat. I'm enjoying reading through some of them. So far, and I assume it's the intent, it's a "philosophy-lite" or even more in your original comment, "stuff some philosophers may say when having a beer after work." Some I've read they've slid over the tough spots in order to give a short answer that is related to the question.

luckyme.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

This site is a wonderful benchmark for the continuing process of science making philosophy more and more worthless every day/year/century/etc. I'm pretty sure Hawking says something about this at the end of Brief History of Time, but I lent my copy out a few years ago, and apparently it hasn't made its way back to my shelf yet, so I can't provide the exact quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hawkings was discussing the possibility of a unified theory and mentioned it's the role of philosophy to answer the 'why' questions.

"In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field .....
.... However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein,the most famous philosopher of this century,said, " The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!"

Wittgenstein may be the most famous but I suspect Dennett and others have a much bigger impact on society. Dennett is a great example of how the mind of a philosopher can aid scientific studies.

Hawkings, and perhaps Wittgenstein, don't see philosophy as such a hands-on function as the Dennett types do.

luckyme

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat of a hijack, and probably deserves it's own thread. I just don't know if I can stomach the discussion.

The whole notion of professional philosphy amuses me. As far as I can tell, the only things of value (using a generous definition) to come from the field these days are:
- teaching other people about philosophy,
- writing books filled with speculation and pseudoscientific vocabulary that would make even Michael Behe proud.

This link from the site sums it up nicely.

[ QUOTE ]
The source of the ability of the mind to form representations of things as being outside the mind is one of the great mysteries of philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Puke.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a lot of hand waving, but you never say why you think philosophy has no value. There are certainly others who share your view, including some philosophers. What value do you think philosophy should have that it does not?

Do you think that to have value as an academic discipline or field of intellectual inquiry philosophy should have its own domain of specialized knowledge, and show clear signs of progress, and that it has failed at this?

What books are you referring to that are filled with speculation and pseudo-scientific vocabulary? What philosophy have you read that you think is of no intellectual value?

If you're serious in thinking that philosophers are just employing a pseudo-scientific vocabulary, I invite you to read some of the work of two philosophers of science whom I know, and decide for yourself how much of a grasp they have on the science they are writing about:

http://admin.cdh.ucla.edu/webpage.php?par=103
http://philosophy.unc.edu/lange.html

As for the link you provided, do you think that the question of consciousness and intentionality is a pseudo-question, or just one easily answered so that there is no real mystery?

The site I posted about is not a site to read philosophy on. It is a very informal question and answer forum designed as a kind of introduction to philosophy. When I wrote that "some might be interested" in this site, the 'some' that I had in mind were neophytes to the field who might have a burgeoning interest in philosophy.