Hacker News Reader

> What is central to philosophy is _abstraction_. From that vantage point it more closely resembles software engineering than any other human activity...

That probably made a bunch of mathematicians smile.

One might say that mathematics is almost pure abstraction, whereas philosophy has a much greater emphasis on going back and forth between abstractions and the real world to fit them together.

Ethics and political philosophy have contributed to wars and revolutions, and in turn were shaped by them. Epistemology and metaphysics similarly influenced, and were influenced by, the cultural milieu of their times. A philosophical theory that does not respond to the very real needs and sentiments of its listeners is unlikely to gain acceptance at that time, no matter how elegant or self-consistent it might be.

Likewise, in software engineering, you usually don't abstract away in a vacuum. The relationship between entities in your CRUD app must have at least some semblance of the actual things they represent, or your app will become a UX nightmare.

> Logic is no more central to philosophy than...

I filled my mandatory philosophy credit hours many years ago, so this might be a very silly question: what happens when a product of philosophy can be demonstrated to logically not follow? It was my impression that such a product would be discarded, making logic extremely important in philosophy - unlike, unfortunately, many other human endeavors.

Good point.

I see it this way. Logic is a method. It is one of the ways _how_ philosophy does what it does. (You could argue it is the only way, and many would not disagree with you.) However, consider what other disciplines do not require logically coherent inferences. Most, no? Art is one of the few which does not. Therefore logic is not central to philosophy because it is central to practically all disciplines! What is central to philosophy is, as I said, _abstraction_. The willingness to go meta-, to stand back from what you're looking at and questions the conditions of its possibilities. Do you see where I'm coming from? To make a stronger point, and to not at the same time denigrate your position, philosophers go astray when they focus on logic. :)

I see, I think we are pretty close to the point of debating how true a truth is. I think the real difference between the disciplines, in the application of logic, is highlighted by your use of "coherent". While an engineer will work mostly to build upon a set of precepts, philosophy is charged with the responsibility of deconstruction. Of the two, who is spending time wondering about the abstract concept of the number one? I think that focus on local coherence is what led philosophers in the dark ages to debate whether Adam had a navel, as the premise was left unchecked. So I'd say that philosophers go astray when they do not focus on logic.

Logic has little value in philosophy because the terms have no specific inherent meaning. The solution seems to be to fix specific meaning to terms, but your stuck using meaningless terms to do so. Queue a recursive waste of time.

Though people are used to ambiguity and love extracting meaning from arbitrary stories, so it's not all that obvious of an issue. At its core philosophy is not about extracting meaning through analysis it's about conveying what someone has already desided to be true.

> ...it's about conveying what someone has already desided to be true.

I think the field strives for a little more than that, at the very least discussion is preferred to rote learning. Logic provides a common language for that discussion.

Why do you think logic is taught as part of the philosophy department in US universities, not the math or comp sci department?

Personally, I think the means of abstraction and logical reasoning we take for granted today are the direct result of thousands of years of philosophy!

Logic is taught exactly in mathematics and computer science programs as a mandatory topic. Philosophy programs place far less emphasis, often providing it only as an elective.

A) Depends on the school. But, it is commonly set up this way so people can satisfy general ED requirements without 'wasting' a class. If you read through this list there are logic class from several departments. (Mathematics, Computer Science, and Philosophy) http://logic.harvard.edu/courses.php

B) Randomly trying things for thousands of years is likely to produce some interesting results. That does not mean doing so is a good idea.

To your point of meta-fields, many of the smartest people I've known across many fields are Philosophy and X, with X being Physics, Economics, Political Science and Computer Science amongst others.

I think this is very perceptive of you. Could you name one or two? I think that if you could these people would provide a counter-argument to this article.

Thanks! I don't want to name personal friends publicly without asking first.

In terms of public figures, I enjoyed a Ted Talk from Janna Levin who holds a Philosophy concentration amongst her physics credentials. I believe that Paul Graham may have been a philosophy major too.

[0] https://www.ted.com/speakers/janna_levin

Because most forms of media we have emphasize day-to-day thoughts and useless information, rather than act as a forum for discussion with likeminded people.

That was more cynical than what I was aiming for :) What is the alternative would you say?

What is the alternative would you say?

Hacker news, of course :)

I think we just need something like a platform where the goal isn't to just "add everyone you know " and "share everything you do". Something like a social blogging site where you only write thoughts of decent quality and only add people you actually tend to talk to? I'd say maybe something like Tumblr, but Tumblr users just seem to emulate Facebook using Tumblr.

Also, the above ideals make the platform difficult for any investor to support, because it is in contrast to the normal "grow!!!!!!!" direction that most startups want to take.