Hacker News Reader

Comment by Thursday24 | Hacker News Reader

That's perhaps a bit too harsh an assessment of the field. Betrand Russell, in his "A history of western philosophy" defines Philosophy as a no man's land or speculative region between religion/theology and science. It is a bucket of thought which is sceptical, probing, speculative of itself and the world. It can sometimes turn into science, and sometimes otherwise. Essentially it can be seen as an expression of human curiosity, which is the seed of definite knowledge.

View on HN

How can my judgement seem harsh when you basically said the same thing I said? Philosophy is artistic pseudo scientific speculations and we are both in 100% agreement here.

Can such speculations lead to real science? Sure. Does this continue to make the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science being placed in the same “philosophy” bucket a category error? Yes. You can still speculate on science within science and you can still speculate on religion within religion. No need to classify both under “philosophy”

Pseudo refers to pretensions/shams. Philosophy need not pretend to be science, it can openly speculate, without the rigors of the scientific method. In science, a hypothesis can be made, but that has very many parameters restricting what can be said through it.

> I believe it is a bit pretentious. The word philosophy lends extra weight to what is otherwise random speculations. Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it.

It can be above, below, side-by-side, wherever. Or nowhere. Or maybe impossible to say. Whatever the relation is, where is the possibility of pretension here? Philosophers make claims, scientists make claims too. But that is the characteristic of the practitioners, not the field of study.

Effort. You can create a field called the “philosophy of this rock sitting on my lawn.” And this field would fit your definition of philosophy. But there is a clear hierarchy here that is not being obeyed.

Religion from certain perspectives is just made up stories. Should these made up stories be made into a field of study that is a sibling branch of science? Call it the study of religion or made up stories, no point in calling it a philosophy and giving it the same weight as science.

Consider Newton. He pursued physical theories, alchemy and theological studies with similar amount scholarship and zest. His physical theories obtained popularity due to its utility. And his theological and alchemical studies didn't give the world any material benefits and so the world calls those areas of his output "random speculations". But at the core of all these three attempts is a probing, speculative mind. That is my definition of philosophy, that there is an intensely curious mind, which will pour forth effort in understanding the world (including oneself). Newton's subject area was called "Natural Philosophy" for nothing. There are less "successful" philosophers and streams of philosophy, of course.

‘A probing speculative mind” is the rule for what goes into philosophy? I’m sure that the people who came up with a technical basis for creationism also were probing and quite speculative making creationism a philosophy.

Some vague “ a probing speculative mind” is not a good definition for a field of study. It’s way to broad and lacks preciseness.

Philosophy is a PROCESS of enquiry (hopefully "skilled"). It is difficult to compress a long-running & haphazard process into precise definition. You can label the process, talk about various aspects of the process, share examples and so on, but it is perhaps not sensible to define it too precisely. Theories you get at the end of any process of enquiry, whether they are workable or not, are PRODUCTS. Products by their very nature will be well-defined or precise.

I mean given that "creationsim" is an emerging science it classifies as a process which still fits your definition of philosophy.

Heck anything that is a "process" that involves speculative probing is a philosophy according to that definition.

I believe it is a bit pretentious. The word philosophy lends extra weight to what is otherwise random speculations. Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it.

I highly disagree with this.

A statement made on the basis of logic or science has more weight then any sort of random speculation made in “aesthetics” yet philosophy places them on equal grounds. There is a clear error in hierarchy here similar to the phylum based nomenclature in biology.

> Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it.

You've really totally misunderstood what they were describing. Metaphysics is "above" physics because it is about what the word "physics" even means. For example, Newton's first big intellectual accomplishment was to have a strongly opinionated metaphysics which supported his experimental and theoretical approach.

In the contemporary world, proper metaphysics (as described above) is mostly done by physicists themselves, occasionally in cooperation with philosophers. See [1] for a fairly recent example. Similarly, proper metamathematics is most often done by mathematicians, with occasional contributions from philosophers, e.g. [2].

Any time a physicist is writing about the fundamental methodology of the discipline, or about a topic that is not, for now, empirically testable, he is doing metaphysics, often with a hefty dose of mathematics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singular_Universe_and_the_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#Impact_...

The problem here is you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two.

Yeah I can meta the entire universe together if I wanted to. What’s the set of all things that can be talked about? Metaphysics and the Milesian school of thought are both elements in that set. There’s no point in this categorization however compelling you find the arguments within their respective fields.

> you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two.

Sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side?

> Yeah I can meta the entire universe together

Metaphysics is very specifically about the underlying assumptions of physics. It always has been, even though the meaning of the word physics has changed wildly over time. The current meaning of "physics" dictates that it is a metaphysical question whether, for example, quantum theory or string theory are correct. This is metaphysical because it is about underlying assumptions which cannot yet be tested experimentally.

You seem to be taking anyone who uses the word "metaphysics" as actually doing metaphysics, but no professional physicist or philosopher believes this. Some people may well call themselves "physicists" and then talk about ghosts, but it is nonetheless widely understood in the profession that physics is in no way about ghosts. This is similarly true of metaphysics and animism.

When we speak of historical beliefs that are no longer current in civilization, then sure, animism might show up and be presented as "metaphysical", but so what? Newton was wrong about corpuscles being the fundamental unit of matter, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing physics. It just means he was wrong about part of his system of thought, which is always to be expected when looking at past thinkers.

> sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side?

Animism sits side by side with metaphysics under philosophy.

>...

When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn. You can even metameta. I’m saying the legitimacy of talking about metaphysics is different from the legitimacy of say metatoilets.

Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day. This isn’t history class that I’m talking about here. If some scientist is wrong about something, that hypothesis is discarded from science. Animism has not been discarded... it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science. This is the category error I’m talking about.

You're really just arguing against an imagined opponent, at this point.

> Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day.

No it isn't. I'm talking about professional philosophers.

> it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science.

No it isn't. Not by anyone that matters.

> When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn.

I don't care. Metaphysics is where "meta" comes from, and it has a specific meaning and interpretation, within professional philosophy. You are not referring to this specific meaning, and so I don't care what your thoughts are anymore.

You're tilting at windmills my friend.

Animism is still discussed under a new pseudonym: Philosophy of religion.

> You're really just arguing against an imagined opponent, at this point.

Nonsensical statement. You're either calling yourself imaginary or your saying you completely agree with me and I'm completely right and therefore I am arguing with no one.

Please try to keep this conversational logical.

Random speculations? Certain philosophies at least survived the test of time (we are talking about millennia) while we still have to see a scientific theory survive a handful of centuries...

Of course I'm pushing back with my statement, but really claiming philosophy is "random speculations" sounds really uninformed and naive.

That's the problem with philosophy. It's archaic. It doesn't self improve. Christianity and Muslims have been around almost as long as philosophy. It doesn't make their opposing views automatically valid nor does it eliminate the randomness of some arbitrary beliefs in each respective religion (why is jesus named jesus, for example).

Feel free to consciously ignore the developments of the last few thousands year, and to hold the immature view that religious myths have to be taken literally. This sounds like something my teenage nephew would say, so I have lost interest in arguing with you on these topics.

This is a personal attack which is against the rules here.

I think you took my words as an attack because you’ve been personally invested in philosophy for so long defending it like a cultist who refuses to take reality at face value. Greek mythology and Chinese mythology and most mythology were invented in the past as literal explanations of reality.

The penchant today to not take things literally is an excuse. Our understanding of reality has changed and the archaic explanations of of the past no longer work yet blind loyalty still binds you to religious explanations. This is why people twist the explanations and say to not take them literally. Were people in the past so stupid that they had to wrap every explanation in the symbolism of a fantastical myth? Doubtful. This is more likely the excuse made by someone who cannot reconcile rationality with there loyalty to a religion.

I don’t think you actually lost interest. I think you just know you lost.

Peace brother. One day you'll understand. (Also what you write is factually false).

Such empty words. Calling my views immature and using other insults and saying I'll never understand are methods used to ignite war. You lost, and youre lashing out.

You had a simple option. Explain your point, but you failed to do that. You resorted to insults and now you suddenly want peace? Contradictory and emotional reactions are a sign of impending loss.

What I write is inexplicably true and you are scared. Because what I write is tearing down beliefs you've invested years in and you can't face the truth. Your insult is a defensive wall to protect that belief.

If logic was available to defend your beliefs you would've used it. Here's your final chance.

I never claimed you will never understand. I said the exact opposite (read again), and again you are twisting my words to play a pointless game that you so much want to win, it seems so important to you because you keep on using these childish words win/lose... shrug.

I am definitely attacking your arguments, which I find ignorant. Not you. I don't care, I don't know you.

It's factually wrong to claim that religious myths are to be taken literally or that they were ever meant to do so. Or that philosophy is random speculations. You are missing the concept of "plausibility" as opposed to truth, which would help you navigate these topics. I can suggest the book Perennial Philosophy by Huxley to start getting a cursory understanding of what we are talking about here, which ultimately boils down to the inability of language to capture transcendental experiences which every society, all over the planet for the whole of recorded history had and thought about capturing in stories that survived to these days. To call that "random speculations" is so ridicule that can hardly be commented against.

What you write is not tearing anything down, is making me laugh, actually: it sounds exactly like me 20 years ago.

You broke the site guidelines badly in this thread, repeatedly crossing into personal attack. Please don't post in the flamewar style here. It's not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>I am definitely attacking your arguments, which I find ignorant. Not you. I don't care, I don't know you.

You think people are so stupid that some technicality like this isn't a personal attack? Arguments can't know things therefore arguments can't be ignorant. Only people can be ignorant. You are insulting me 100 percent by calling me ignorant.

Your post is seething with personal attack.

>which ultimately boils down to the inability of language to capture transcendental experiences which every society, all over the planet for the whole of recorded history had and thought about capturing in stories that survived to these days.

Many people on HN trust material logic and science and hold my viewpoint of atheism. Talk about transcendence is not logical to them. To them and me the inability to describe trancendence indicates that it doesn't really even exist. It's just an emotion that that is the result of chemical reactions in your brain no different then what happens when someone gets a transcendental experience doing heroin or lsd. This is the opinion held by many on this site and many consider it to be far more "plausible" then your view point. They would argue that it is ridiculous to think that all religious documents are not written literally as if scholars were unable to comprehend the concept of a literal message. If you want someone to understand something you use literal messages not symbolic stories why would religious scholars not do the same? It is in fact ludicrous to believe that all religions are just some form of symbolic message as if the literal manuals we use in modern society to explain things are only a recent phenomenon.

This topic is a worthwhile debate but Your attitude is slander against the many who hold an opposing opinion.

The transgression here is that you called me and this idea held by many members of hn ignorant and you insulted your nephew and me and laughed in my face.

When you debate someone logically you must remain completely impartial. If you have to retort to personal insults I suggest you try that kind of thing in real life, see how far you can get.

I also suggest you read the rules of HN, don't presume the mods are so stupid as to not be able to see your intention. Your words are akin to: "I'm not calling you an idiot, it's just everything you do and say is idiotic and I'm laughing at it."

I believe that if you were completely confident about your views you wouldn't resort to these tactics. Some part of you knows that your beliefs stand on shaky grounds and you are again lashing out in a desperate attempt to hold on to these views.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com