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

[Ben K]

[quote 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like me. Though I find the language in philosophical texts gets too technical and I'm not used to it which makes it hard going and dull sometimes. I liked the link btw.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This seems like a bunch of guys spouting off their personal opinions

[/ QUOTE ]

Isnt that pretty much what philosophy is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardly. The hallmark of analytic philosophy is rigorous argumentation--quite the opposite of spouting off personal opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty common initial reaction to philosophy...I'd think it's more likely for random poker players to vicerally spout off.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a question that philosophy has no business with. There are scientists who are actual experts in the field who have the ability and resources to work toward a meaningful answer. Once that happens, what is the goalpost going to move to? My guess is the next "great mystery" of philosophy will be finding the source of the ability of cows to lie down before it rains.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that site help? The only useful things I found on there were a few instances where the question posed was so incredibly dumb and riddled with fallacy, even in comparison to the norm, that the responder had no choice but to point out its flaws. In that regard it was about 1/10th as useful as the average Sklansky post (at least the ones where he corrects others' logical missteps rather than makes positive statements himself).

I don't really mean to come off as harsh as I am. It's just frustrating living in a society that is not only scientifically ignorant, but willfully so in many instances. I don't see a bunch of "I think..."s as being particularly useful in combatting this. I had avoided reading Dawkins for years because I just assumed it would be pure choir-preaching to me, but I've now read a few of his books, and I'm about halfway through The Selfish Gene, and it's a breath of fresh air. Someone with the communication skills and ability to cross over into the ethics debate, with the scientific base to back him up, is orders of magnitude more interesting than a debate between philosophers on when it's ok to cheat on your wife with your coworker.

EDIT:
I just read this. This response is terrible. Pure speculation. Dawkins would have blown this out of the water.

EDIT AGAIN:
This makes baby jeebus cry.

[kbfc]

I haven't read any Dennett. I'll put something on my queue of books to read. Any suggestions?

I studied Wittgenstein in college and somewhat enjoyed the experience. (I'll leave that purposefully vague as I'm sure a number of people familiar with Wittgenstein should be able to understand).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read any Dennett. I'll put something on my queue of books to read. Any suggestions?

I studied Wittgenstein in college and somewhat enjoyed the experience. (I'll leave that purposefully vague as I'm sure a number of people familiar with Wittgenstein should be able to understand).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Breaking the Spell is very good, but Consciousness Explained is amazing.

[Philo]

I asked what books you had read that were "filled with speculation and pseudo-scientific vocabulary" and you mentioned none, and instead provided two more links to the site I originally posted about.

You seem to have inferred from my OP that the entries on that site are somehow representative of the actual work that philosophers produce, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. That site is designed primarily as a means for the philosophically uninitiated to pose questions to professional philosophers and get some quick feedback and very general guidance. The responses there are nothing more than watered-down philosophical chit-chat (although I think a sophisticated question would likely receive a sophisticated response, which is the main reason I thought the site might be helpful to some posters from SMP).

I provided links to the sites of two philosophers whom I know so you could look at some actual publications in the philosophy of science and decide for yourself if those philosophers understand the science they are writing about, and you said nothing about it. If you’d like to point out the speculation and pseudo-scientific vocabulary that appears in their work I’d be more than happy to take your claims seriously.

Otherwise, I’m not at all convinced that you understand the philosophical issues having to do with the nature of consciousness, or the philosophy of mind more generally, or that you’re even familiar with any contemporary work in the philosophy of science.