Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexashka | Hacker News Reader

Can somebody explain the fascination with taking different schools of philosophy and talking about who thought what?

I just don't understand why anyone should care what 'existentialists' think, or John Locke, or anybody else.

There is a goal, and there are strategies with various pros/cons for achieving that goal. Differences in opinion spring from having different goals, and/or disagreeing about the ways to get there.

What is talking endlessly about other people's opinions accomplishing? Is it about creating a 'robust philosophy'? Throws up in his mouth

View on HN

It's a way to structure a discussion. Because philosophy is a pretty wide field, clarifying that you're talking about Rousseau's concept of human nature is simply a way to indicate that you're talking about a particular school or flavour of thought, without having to recite the entire body of work. Classification is always useful, not just in philosophy. It's no different from classifying mathematical fields as 'number theory' or 'algebra', just to indicate what frame of mind you're in when you talk about a problem.

Structure is needed to accomplish something. You're thoroughly missing my point, let me try an analogy:

I am going to gather 100 fools, and ask each, what they imagine life on mars must be like. I am then going to structure their opinions, write them down in books, and so on.

Replace 'life on mars' with 'human nature'. I fail to see the difference between my example and the presented article.

Now if someone were to go study physics, invent a rocket, get into the rocket, fly to Mars, and have the ability to report back their findings - that'd be discovering life on mars.

I'd listen to his/her take on life on mars with great interest. I'd call that a scientist with an informed opinion.

But Rousseau was no fool in the field of philosophy, he was in fact one of the chief contributors to the philosophy of human nature, so that analogy makes no sense at all.

His ideas are still very relevant and have seen a resurgence in recent years, as he was one of the first philosophers to tie his philosophy of human nature to a political and social criticism of elites, something that is again extremely topical today.

I think the difference between your example and the article's is that it's easier to dismiss an account of 100 fools and only with a little effort and maybe some arrogance to dismiss bodies of work promoted by various reputable institutions. Work done in this way probably makes the only way we can communicate complex ideas more "robust".

Name dropping can be counter productive, sure, but at best it is shorthand. If one had to re hash every prior argument one would never get around to original discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com