To Find Literature Review src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/64/60/f6/6460f652db70a98156114a545c515b2d.jpg" data-lazy-type="image" alt="have useful information" class="lazy lazy-hidden alignleft size-full wp-image-458" width="220">What surprised me the most about PG's essay was his use of tiny small sample size to make a broad statement about an entire field of study.
He article source together an interesting argument about the pros and cons of ancient Greek philosophy and their discussion of metaphysics, and includes modern perspectives, but then titles it "How to Do Philosophy". Yes, Philosophy is still a young field, but there's at least years of material not covered in his essay.
Wittgenstein was certainly interesting, but he thought Godel was wrong, precisely because Godel showed something interesting about logic itself: Paul is obviously right in criticizing the Paul Graham Essay Philosophy generalizations, nonsensical pretentiousness and word games that much of the western particularly, the german philosophical tradition fell into after the reformation. But I Paul Graham Essay Philosophy agree with the philosphical hacker that he is overstating the case that word-confusion is the primary cause of conflict in philosophical disagreement, and I think Godel showed why this is compatible with an apparently deterministic and logical universe.
As near as my uneducated mind can tell, Godel is the most important philosopher since Aristotle: In as much as I understand it, it makes me laugh hysterically. Balgair days ago. I'll agree with you as well on Godel and his importance. His theorem is easily one of the most important things to come out of the 20th century. I've not got the chops for the actual proof, but the many 'for the layman's' books Ive read on it just point out how incredibly important it is.
From AI research to Turing's tape to the nature of reality itself, the proof is just astounding. To put him up on Aristotle's level is obvious even to a math layman like Paul Graham Essay Philosophy. Likely because of the difficulty of the proof, it is not very well known, and that is a shame. I'd love a torn-down proof easy enough for a high schooler to understand. The best I've found is: I have very often seen people criticise Philosophy from a point of ignorance and then follow up by espousing their own very bad philosophy.
It's kinda like criticising a Mathematical proof without understanding Math.
You can do it, but you're highly likely to be off the mark. It's not that Philosophy doesn't have areas worthy of criticism. I personally believe that the best reason to study metaphysics is to learn why metaphysics is useless.
Ironically, understanding why it's useless is actually quite useful: This is not a question about the meaning of my words. I haven't studied philosophy, so I may be naive here, but does this question NOT depend on the definition of "right"?
In a practical discussion, maybe both parties would agree that "right" in this case means "fair, in accordance with my contributions to this startup". But in a philosophical debate, "right" would be quite ambiguous.
One party, for example, could posit that the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are completely subjective. That, in the absence of some stated goal or constraints, what's "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil" is no more valid a topic of debate than whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.
However, once you introduce said constraints, the discussion is no longer philosophically interesting. So, what you're saying is that the problem of philosophy is that someone could derail a discussion concerning ethics by simply asserting meta-ethical subjectivism and that would be uninteresting or bad in some other way I don't quite understand this objection. Not to mention that this is exactly the opposite of what you would expect to find in a philosophical debate.
The whole point of the discipline is that every position must be argued for and questioned Paul Graham Essay Philosophy not just asserted.
Lecture 3 - Before the Startup (Paul Graham)
That of course includes subjectivism. It's not that the discussion is simply derailed. It's that it can't even take place until both parties agree on the terminology. The word "right" is packed with all sorts of assumptions on the speaker's part that the listener may not agree with.
If that is the case, the discussion devolves into a discussion about those assumptions, which in turn devolve into more discussions about more assumptions. Nearly every word is packed with meaning, which must be unraveled and argued for with The cycle never ends. On a theoretical level, this is true for every discussion in every discipline. On a practical level, how would you know that this is a special problem in philosophy if you admit that you haven't studied any?
Just for the record. I did say that arguments are required and of course those arguments are composed of words and symbols but i never said that those arguments are about the meaning of words. I only suspect based on what I've seen. Philosophy, it seems, makes it difficult to use common language colloquially, because the meaning of continue reading words is the primary linchpin upon which many philosophical debates rest, rather than external data or evidence.
In other disciplines, this is not the case. The two participants in a discussion generally share the same goals, or at least agree on the measuring stick e. Progress toward their goals can be measured in straightforward and objective ways. Thus, it's Paul Graham Essay Philosophy less common for there to be disagreement about basic terminology. Of course I could be wrong.
Maybe there are many interesting philosophical debates that don't simply devolve into semantics. Perhaps you could humor me by providing examples?
September In high school I decided I was going to study philosophy in college. I had several motives, some more honorable than others. One of the less honorable. How to Do Philosophy: News from the Front: How Not to Die: Holding a Program in One's Head: Stuff: The Age of the Essay: The Python Paradox: Great Hackers: Mind. A couple years ago, Paul Graham wrote an essay about philosophy. The essay, on my reading, makes three central claims: Philosophy has largely been driven by our. Paul Graham; Born 13 November Graham has a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy from Cornell University an essay; Paul Graham's essays in all languages. I tend to agree with Graham that much of philosophy suffers from exactly this disease. Paul Graham's essay isn't the best or most complete criticism of.
I think it does; this is another example of what I pointed out in my post upthread, the author assuming that, because he knows what he means when he uses a word, everyone else must assign it the same meaning. In the context of ethics, "right" and "wrong" as judgement calls on the "goodness" or "badness" of a choice are basically given. Depending on your ethical standpoint, there are different things in the "right" set and the "wrong" set, but all ethical viewpoints such as utilitarianism or hedonism have a "right" set and a "wrong" set.
The sole exception being moral nihilism. When one thinks about ethics, one should take into account the existence of teleological ethics or consequentialism where "right" and "wrong" depends on the outcomes of the action.
As far as a person isn't aware of the outcomes of Paul Graham Essay Philosophy action, he or she can't really judge if the action was "right" or "wrong". Also due to the butterfly effects,in most cases a person is theoretically unable to produce objective judgement, thus leaving the judgement of the action in the "undefined" state.
Once you provide a constraint on what you mean by "good" or "bad" in this case, an ethical viewpoint e. At most, you can debate whether or not your understanding of utilitarianism or whatever constraint you choose is accurate, but you've made no progress as to whether or not the constraint itself is "better" or "worse" than any other arbitrarily-chosen Paul Graham Essay Philosophy.
Why do people think that computer science gives them the authority to pontificate on any topic of their choosing? And even considering the question of "is all philosophy simply word confusion" would get you laughed out of the room by any Paul Graham Essay Philosophy grad student.
I actually just graduated with a master's degree in philosophy from Tufts University, one of the top philosophy programs in the country. I also studied philosophy in undergrad. I'm perfectly happy with admitting that I don't know a lot about metaphysics and I'm perfectly happy for people to call me out on this point. In fact, I call myself out on this point in a footnote in my post. I just wanted to set the record straight: I am not merely a comp sci person who click the following article that he has the authority to "pontificate on any topic of their choosing.
Why does it matter? If an 8 year old wanted to pontificate on metaphysics, I would gladly listen to and engage them. And maybe I would learn something. Not all exchange has to be professionally compiled knowledge being bestowed to laypeople. I kind of think everyone can learn something from everybody on most any topic. Within a discussion I think it makes sense to interpret statements based on the Paul Graham Essay Philosophy and their epistemology.
But that doesn't mean you can't have a conversation. Philosophy touches many different fields and it seems quite natural to me that interested people explore the border regions. If you are a physicist or even if you are only interested in physics it is quite easy to recognize that there is a problem with the idea of free will.
Or if you are a neurobiologist. Mathematicians naturally get into contact with logic, proofs, knowledge and the like. Or think of linguists. Not that any of them would be a full-fledged philosopher but there are for sure areas of philosophy where people from other professions naturally have something to say. To me it seems like this whole debate Is philosophy useless or not in ?
While each site offers different features, and sets their boards up differently, most present an auto-daub function that marks off the numbers automatically.
Include this age-old annual tradition and be a part of this Mexico vacation adventure. Publisher: Wednesday Latimer Mexico vacations that include Cozumel afford you the opportunity to see one of the Seven Wonders of the World, the Chichen Itza which is the capital of ancient Maya empire.
Nobody seems to agree what philosophy actually is. The question can't be answered without that being clearly defined. Especially since he says nothing new. The idea about philosophy being based on a "confusion of words" is centuries older than even Wittgenstein, and has been debated appropriately but he seems blisfully unaware of those discussions.
It's like arguing against something you only know from an class. To put it in layman terms, the thing is, words with precise meaning are not that useful in discussing lots of things.
Perhaps because lots of things are not inherently clear, but fuzzy in itself. What is the best thing to do with my life? None of these are clear cut -- and the things that are clear cut, well, not all of those are worth discussing or really important. A lot of stuff is better described and argued about with imprecise words. Click here is also the body of such discussions.
In essense, this parallels Godel's incompleteness result Note that I say "parallels" -- Godel only proved it within a very specific mathematical context. Mathematics thrive even if Paul Graham Essay Philosophy are not concerned with purely axiomatic systems.
One should present ideas and arguments and not credentials, but I guess this is only the opinion of some one not as intelligent as a PhD holder.