Philosophy is a Bunch of Empty Ideas
3quarksdaily.com
3quarksdaily.com
Maybe the most enjoyable thing, though, was the complete lack of any false modesty on the part of the interviewee:
> I can do psychology [...] far better than the best psychologist like Daniel Kahneman, who hasn’t been trained up in philosophy. It may be because I’m smarter than him. But there’s probably more to it than just that.
!
And on metaphysics in general: We have learned so much more from Kant than, say, Da Vinci; what would Unger have to say on engineering? If philosophy isn't about easy answers, it isn't about easy questions, too ...
P.S.: I may be biased, since I've a degree in the field. Yes, there's much crappy philosophy, esp. in the 19th century. But then, there's much crappy software, too. Should we give up programming, just because MS failed again?
> The Investigations are quite opposed to the project of the tractatus
quite so straightforwardly; both are to some extent interested in describing the limits of what can be said objectively, and in constructing arguments that place some (including a lot of philosophical) speech outside that boundary. I do agree that the stance taken by the Tractatus is undermined by the deeper problematic exposed by PI, of course, I'm just saying there is commonality in the intent.
I don't think it's realistic to evaluate philosophy in terms of its production of positive "philosophical truth", btw. From my point of view most of its value is in exposing incorrect assumptions.
So, for instance, metaphysics would be "the philosophical portion of theoretical physics", useful for pointing physics in new directions but ultimately reliant on actual data to constrain its imagination.