Hype's Philosophy Thread

off-topic conversation unrelated to Jane's Addiction
Message
Author
User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#61 Post by Hype » Tue May 03, 2016 4:32 pm

SR wrote:I told him to say hello to you. :noclue: He very likely won't, but who knows. I'll definitely send the word on the site. I'd hope that he'd already been advised about it....where he is and all. Again, :noclue:
It's probably not worth it to talk to me for a small part of a class tbh. There's a really basic bunch of things they want students to get from it at that level... something about substance monism (as opposed to dualism), and probably a little bit about causal necessity... The trick is to recognize how difficult the details are but not get too hung up on them.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#62 Post by SR » Wed May 04, 2016 6:03 am

Hype wrote:
SR wrote:I told him to say hello to you. :noclue: He very likely won't, but who knows. I'll definitely send the word on the site. I'd hope that he'd already been advised about it....where he is and all. Again, :noclue:
It's probably not worth it to talk to me for a small part of a class tbh. There's a really basic bunch of things they want students to get from it at that level... something about substance monism (as opposed to dualism), and probably a little bit about causal necessity... The trick is to recognize how difficult the details are but not get too hung up on them.
:cool:

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2803
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#63 Post by Bandit72 » Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:56 am

I've just discovered the Magic Sandwich Show. :wiggle:

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2803
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#64 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:13 am

If you were to ask a Muslim or a Christian why dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Quran or in the Bible, and the answer they gave you was 'because they are irrelevant to what the books try to teach', would you accept that as an answer?

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#65 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:11 am

Bandit72 wrote:If you were to ask a Muslim or a Christian why dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Quran or in the Bible, and the answer they gave you was 'because they are irrelevant to what the books try to teach', would you accept that as an answer?
They would probably actually point you to the stuff about behemoth / leviathan...

But the latter answer... yeah, sure. That seems fine.

wally
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:33 am

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#66 Post by wally » Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:53 am

Image

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 9292
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#67 Post by Artemis » Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:24 pm

:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#68 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:27 pm

wally wrote:Image
That's literally how the scientific method was developed. But it does seem funny if you don't think about it.

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3865
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#69 Post by Matz » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:59 pm

Hype, in the beginning of the Free will thread you called Sam Harris a hack. I just watched this video and as far as I can tell you two seem to agree 100%. If you got time do you mind explaining, why you think he's a hack? (I didn't put the video up expecting you to watch it of course just to let you know my source)


User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#70 Post by Hype » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:30 pm

That's a fair question. I do think he's a hack, which I take literally, just to mean that he isn't an especially skilled thinker, philosopher, or even public intellectual. And I say this as someone who, unlike most of my peers, still holds a lot of respect for Dawkins as a science educator, and Dennett as a philosopher, and Hitchens as a rhetorical powerhouse (this being the rest of the "Four Horsemen" of the "Atheist Apocalypse"...)

Like a hack comedian who can get cheap laughs, I wanted to like Harris years ago, but I just can't endorse what he does, much of what he says, or the way he goes about it. The fact that he and I might agree about some conclusions is totally independent of our respective approaches to philosophical argument, rhetoric, etc.

I also agree with Ayn Rand, Donald Trump, and Henry Kissinger about some things, but that doesn't mean I think their methods are sound.

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3865
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#71 Post by Matz » Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:34 am

ok, I see, thanks

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2803
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#72 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:21 am

Hype wrote:And I say this as someone who, unlike most of my peers, still holds a lot of respect for Dawkins as a science educator, and Dennett as a philosopher, and Hitchens as a rhetorical powerhouse
I'd be interested to hear their reasoning as to why they don't.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#73 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:49 am

Bandit72 wrote:
Hype wrote:And I say this as someone who, unlike most of my peers, still holds a lot of respect for Dawkins as a science educator, and Dennett as a philosopher, and Hitchens as a rhetorical powerhouse
I'd be interested to hear their reasoning as to why they don't.
I think they rightfully see that Dawkins has at times attacked non-science areas of academia, largely unfairly, and yet went ahead and wrote The God Delusion, which basically rehashes a bunch of arguments Bertrand Russell wrote in "Why I'm Not a Christian", a potboiler from 60 years ago. It doesn't help that a lot of people who read that book started treating Dawkins like a god... I experienced that shit myself back when the book first came out. But I think it's a bunch of different things. Dawkins has also said some pretty insane, rude, horrible things recently that don't exactly endear him to people who already dislike his strategy.

Dennett is seen as someone who wants badly to be a scientist, not a philosopher. He's also an interesting case, because he works at Tufts, which doesn't have a PhD program, so he doesn't have his own grad students.

Hitchens is seen as a pseudo-intellectual, and I think there's truth in that. But he's also interesting. And I think he's right about Mother Teresa.

I think part of the problem is that these guys are all popularizers, and academics often resent the watering down of areas that they themselves work on. Plus there are professional rivalries and jealousies, since there's only so much research funding to go around.

Another issue may be that all of these guys have been outspoken and quite blunt about religion in ways that many people dislike. Some of this may be residual unjustified belief that religion is "off the table", so to speak, but some of it is also just a difference of opinion about educational strategy.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#74 Post by SR » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:44 am

I have never understood the position of academics who are content to have the depths of their work compartmentalized in their ivory towers. Academics who gain traction in the mainstream are whores to a socio/political/economic game. That's built into a much larger system, that without, would never allow them to reach non academics. The point, the richness, the goal of academics work is to better the human condition.

Eagleton, Bloom, Zinn, Greenblatt, and the editors of all the Norton anthologies (these are massive anthologies edited for what are essentially non academics in literature, undergrads), Dawkins, Dennett, and many more have served a noble utility in ushering information and thought to a much larger audience than would have been otherwise possible. This is a very good thing. It has to be watered down. Not everyone has the opportunity, resolve, or initiative to spend a decade studying.

Too, academics (or the institutions they work for) routinely invite non academics into their world where it might serve to glean some shine from the likes of celebrities. Recently a group of friends in academia were lamenting that Angelina Jolie was invited to guest lecture. I see their point.....many were exceptionally well educated and worthy of tenure track, but sadly had little hope of it ever materializing. On the other hand, Jolie has served as a credible humanitarian and frankly, people care about a message from her lips and not my bitter friends.

And then there's this. A great deal of angst is energy in academics is to continue with their work, not for the betterment of any meta level human condition, but to impress and gain recognition within academia's hierarchy. By no means is it everyone and to what degree it happens to each one individually can never be calculated, but it's real. We're human; I get that. We all want recognition whether we admit it or not.

Ho hum, if Hitch was a pseudo intellectual there's no hope for any of us. His ability to think critically couldn't have been taught, but likely could have been sharpened by more formal education. It's comforting thought that he did not consider himself an intellectual.

Harris is an odd bird to me. 15/20 years ago his arguments were murky and tepid. After some years, he has appeared to take pause and edit his positions to be clear, though not often in depth.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2803
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#75 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:48 am

Yeh, fair enough. All four of them do have a personality certain people aren't going to like and I do get the Dawkins critique and he does have a tendency to rub people up the wrong way. I kind of agree with the Hitchens comment, although I don't believe Hitchens himself would class himself as an intellectual, he just posesses an abundance of vocabulary and has a rather quick analytical mind. The evidence against Mother Teresa is overwhelming, and for her to deny her faith just before she died slammed the final nail in her coffin.
Another issue may be that all of these guys have been outspoken and quite blunt about religion in ways that many people dislike. Some of this may be residual unjustified belief that religion is "off the table", so to speak, but some of it is also just a difference of opinion about educational strategy.
I would say "tough" to this. Is religion only off the table for fear of reprisal?

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#76 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:09 am

Yeah, I'm basically in agreement with SR here. The situation in academia is a bit more complicated than all of this, largely because of politics and money. But as I said, I'm generally okay with popularizing academic subjects. I think there's something really off about Harris, and I've tried to put my finger on it here, since i was asked, but in the end, I just don't really care about him. He's not as popular or as smart as any of the other three guys are/were. He's not as amiable and energetic as DeGrasse-Tyson, who also bothers me more than Dawkins, and he's not as abrasive as Lawrence Krauss, who wrote a steaming pile of shitty philosophy ("A Universe From Nothing") masquerading as science and tried to say that it ended an entire area of academic work in philosophy. :confused: ***


*** I'm not just saying this. Even folks in the popular science media wonder what the hell he's doing: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... ilosopher/

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#77 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:12 am

Bandit72 wrote:
Another issue may be that all of these guys have been outspoken and quite blunt about religion in ways that many people dislike. Some of this may be residual unjustified belief that religion is "off the table", so to speak, but some of it is also just a difference of opinion about educational strategy.
I would say "tough" to this. Is religion only off the table for fear of reprisal?
As far as I can tell, some people on the Academic Left (which most people in Academia are on...) are concerned that a certain kind of outspoken anti-religiosity is becoming confused with racist, anti-immigrant, or just anti-Liberal rhetoric, often unwittingly. See, e.g., Dawkins' comments about that American student whose "clock" science fair project was mistaken for a bomb (probably because kid is brown-skinned).

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#78 Post by SR » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:04 pm

Had to go back and find this thread. I got a call from a friend who invited me to the Harris/Dawkins lecture here in LA on Tuesday. Brief Candle in the Dark was the most self promotional masturbatory thing I have ever read. Really, the literary version with far superior discourse of Trump.

I think I am more concerned about the crowd than the content from the stage. But, I gotta go....

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6884
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#79 Post by Hype » Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:19 pm

SR wrote:Had to go back and find this thread. I got a call from a friend who invited me to the Harris/Dawkins lecture here in LA on Tuesday. Brief Candle in the Dark was the most self promotional masturbatory thing I have ever read. Really, the literary version with far superior discourse of Trump.

I think I am more concerned about the crowd than the content from the stage. But, I gotta go....
Just don't drink any kool-aid while you're there. :lol:

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7195
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Hype's Philosophy Thread

#80 Post by SR » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:30 pm

:dunce:

Post Reply