We Have to Wait for A.I. (or aliens) for New Philosophy
25 years ago, I was prepared to go into philosophy graduate school. A philo of science professor talked me out of it. His argument was essentially: all the good stuff has already been thought of. You'll spend your days writing papers on meaningless trivialities until you get tenure.
I think he was right. The original stuff has already been thought of. There's been too many smart people for anyone to have missed anything fundamental by now. We need new perspectives.
I think he was right. The original stuff has already been thought of. There's been too many smart people for anyone to have missed anything fundamental by now. We need new perspectives.
Comments (47)
Philosophy falls under liberal arts and all liberal arts tend to express the obvious in new ways or perspective. Science on the other hand tries to explore new stuff.The greatest benefit of philosophy is it allows you to see the weaker side of almost everyone's viewpoint.Which will cause people to tolerate each other and explore new ideas with an open mind.But academic philosophy can get boring and pretentious pretty quickly.
What a feeble principle that is! As if only novelty has value.
Well, you cannot produce original insights by merely reading and rehashing the classics!
That is trivially obvious.
You will, instead, need to bring some interesting experience from looking at what people do in a particular practical field around you. The collection of philosophyOf(X) fields is much larger and ultimately also much more interesting than just X=philosophy itself.
A good example of an excellent epistemologist of X=randomness, is Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
I have read every single one of his Incerto books:
In my opinion, Taleb's books are pure genius.
You see, Taleb's experience is in finance. The finance industry uses and abuses ceremonial rituals in mathematics and science as smoke and mirrors. In reality, they just sell snake oil. Taleb also points out that the finance industry is not the only industry doing that, i.e. repackaging the superficial appearance and rituals of solid mathematics and serious science into costly snake oil. His Incerto books are fantastic, if only, because they remind us of the fact that we are entirely surrounded and outnumbered by dangerous gangs of deceptive liars.
NNT has his own subreddit of "groupies" discussing his every tweet or other public appearance. He has an impressive fan club ...
I think everyone should have to take a couple of intro-level philo courses. My son is going into Computer Science, and he could care less about philosophy, but they're making him take it. I told him, "it's good for you. It teaches you to be critical and think abstractly."
Yes, you can restate principles and there's value in that, but all the foundational level work has been done.
That is not true!
For example, defining knowledge as a justified true belief is clearly unsustainable.
Edmund Gettier famously breached the stalemate in 1963 with his counterexample cases. The entanglement phenomenon also decisively breaches the classical JTB definition. The problem is now completely up in the air, even on the empirical side of things.
Furthermore, only empirical knowledge could possibly ever be correspondence-theory "true" and therefore JTB knowledge. Axiomatic fields such as mathematics, which are never correspondence-theory "true", are not knowledge in that approach. So, what are they then?
I haven't done it though, so I still need to do it. I ate a meal once, no point in doing it again.
Sounds like you had a really bad teacher there.
Maybe. I don't think anyone's done anything really important since Turing, and he wasn't even a philosopher. I think you'll see computation was the last bit of progress doing philosophy the old-fashioned way could achieve.
What contemporary philosophy have you read? And about what subjects?
None of that is important. I think it is, because my degree's in it, but anyone else would be bored to tears. I've tried to explain the brilliance of Gettier's paper, and people get it, but the inevitable reaction is "so what?"
I think because people recognize what Gettier was getting at, clever as he was, was just a version of the old "how do we know what's real?" argument.
Oh, and whenever we philosopher undergrads would talk about Gettier, we would get so jealous!
I think he was right too. There's a saying which philosophers don't seem to pay heed to,
It's like with technology, the idea of machines is not new anymore but any new advancement is better than ideas without utility in our lives. I think philosophers need to say less and do more. I don't think the problem is new perspectives, it's that philosophers rarely intend to do anything beyond express ideas.
You seem to be working with a pretty narrow (capitalistic?) view of what is important.
What is important is if philosophy is meaningful to people. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle are meaningful to a lot of people. We still quote them, thousands of years later. Gettier isn't. It doesn't matter except to a small group of people if knowledge is a true belief or justified true belief. It doesn't make a difference in their lives and it doesn't cause them to wonder about things.
People generally know more about the Kardashians than a single philosopher living or dead. Are you sure you want to pin importance on what the average Joe thinks is interesting?
That actually matters a whole lot to everyone, whether they care to know it or not. At least, if you want a fuctioning democracy!
We had a functioning democracy before Gettier. Maybe consciousness will finally be figured out. Although, if it was going to be, it probably would have already happened by now.
Not really. And still not. The people are voting on all sorts of issues without knowing why.
But furthermore, you didn't answer multiple points/questions of mine:
1. Which contemporary philosophy have you read?
2. Do you really think the people who put more importance in the Kardashians than in Plato should be determining the value of philosophy? Or what role philosophy plays in your own life?
As Lincoln wrote - of the average Joes, for the average Joes, and by the average Joes. The contempt philosophy shows for average Joes is one if the reasons it is irrelevant.
Also - if JTB is on the cutting edge of unresolved philosophical questions, philosophy is in big trouble. The Gettier paper was written when I was 11 years old, 56 years ago.
What in God's name difference does it make if JTB or TB is true? Who has ever cared about that other than a few people with too much time on their hands? Who cares how we define knowledge? This is probably what the professor in the OP was talking about - this is the kind of crap philosophers are forced to waste their time on.
I agree that the field of academic philosophy is a crap career choice but I don't at all agree that 'it's all been done'. A great deal of what was important about it has been forgotten, or rather, subsequent generations no longer grasp what was important about it. Thinking that it's all been done is typical of consumer capitalism, which has to keep inventing new stuff at a frantic pace and regards the whole of the past as a graveyard. The Western philosophical tradition has inexhaustible riches, but you have to understand how to mine it.
You got it the wrong way around. The Joe's show contempt for philosophy and so philosophy moves on without them.
But you can start a Philosophy of Kardashians if you like. Subject #1 whether tis nobler in the mind to use matte or glossy lipstick. :snicker:
Not sure.
I keep getting irate remarks from @fishfry in another thread because I refuse to read up on the nitty-gritty details of the cutting-edge research on the Continuum Hypothesis (in math). He seems to insinuate that my point of view -- I have to draw the line somwhere, don't I? -- is pure evil.
So, let's say that there is some kind of (relatively small) fan club for bleeding edge research on JTB, while everybody else clearly does not give a flying fart. Isn't that the case for almost *everything* ?
By the way, who the hell would ever have thought that there is complete fan club with greater-than-life pop stars to be found in the "epistemology of randomness"?
Taleb and Nobel laureate Myron Scholes have traded personal attacks, particularly after Taleb's paper with Espen Haug on why nobody used the Black–Scholes–Merton formula.
People are even still siding in the notorious insult fest between David Hilbert and Luitzen Brouwer, even though the antagonists are now dead already (for decades). I surely side with David Hilbert for 100%, and I keep throwing vitriol at Luitzen Brouwer, who in my opinion, is the accomplice of Satan.
None of that is remotely true. You started talking about set theory here ... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/317954. Note that YOU were the one who first brought up set theory in that thread. I corrected some of your errors and you started making wild extrapolations of things you didn't understand. I called you out on your additional errors. A perusal of that thread will confirm my account.
I don't care if you study set theory or not. But if you pretend to understand more than you do and make elementary errors, I'll surely correct you. And point out that you like to throw out buzzwords without understanding their meaning. In that particular thread you came off like a bs artist and you got called on it.
Well, I have said that Woodlin's work is surely interesting, but that Woodlin himself admits that it is not finished, and that I will read up on the details when he does finally finish his work. In the meanwhile, I agree that I refuse to read up on the difference between cardinals that are "extremely large", "super huge", or otherwise "incredibly out-sized". These things are obviously not the same! Ok. happy now?
LOL. One (you, me, anyone) would need a Ph.D. in set theory and several years of specialized postdoc work, and probably more than that, just to read what he's done so far. You keep making this laughable claim that you'll deign to read his work when he's done. You're embarrassing yourself.
Quoting alcontali
You bluffed and got called. Have a nice evening.
Our putative replacements (computers and aliens) will have to deal with the same problems every other conscious, knowing species have had to deal with.
I just read Woodlin's conclusion: "unfinished work". The details of Woodlin's work are indeed "hard" and take a long time to understand. So, yes, I will skip the thing.
Still, Woodlin's work is certainly not the hardest stuff I have ever run into (or started reading). For example, I consider ZK-STARK theory ("Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-Interactive Argument of Knowledge") to be much, much harder. The core ZK-STARK tutorial is subdivided in the following topics:
Especially "Blind Evaluation of Polynomials" is pure genius but I find it really, really "hard".
Some of the guys who wrote this stuff have Ph.D's but almost none of the programmers does. For example, Vitalik Buterin successfullly reimplemented ZK-SNARK in the Ethereum code base, and he never even went to university. He is in his early twenties, and did not have the time for that, because Vitalik was too busy being some kind of cryptocurrency pop star.
Quite a few of the Ph.D crowd will say that they understand the stuff, but when push comes to shove, they will not be able to implement it, not even to save themselves from drowning. So, don't show me the Ph.D piece of paper. Show me your source code instead. If you really want to know about Ph.D's then read the article "Why can't programmers ... program?" Seriously, as Linus Torvalds said: "Talk is cheap, my friend."
Another reason why Vitalik does not have a Ph.D in set theory is because he really does not need one to wipe the floor with you in set theory, if he so desires. Furthermore, nowadays, you are much better off doing some advanced crypto, if you want to be some kind of math super star.
So, yes, if you want to discuss "hard" stuff, then let's at least pick something I can make money with.
The market capitalization of the ZCash cryptocurrency is around 400 million dollars now. So, at least we would know what we are doing it for. There is just one catch. The ZCash people are working on the upgrade to ZK-STARK now. That is what has really discouraged me from "completely" reading up on their theory, and figuring out the related function libraries. They are going to throw it away!
So, you may think that advanced set theory is too "hard" to read, but sorry, it is a walk in the park compared to what we do, when we do what it takes to get the software to run. Furthermore, the real question is: Is it really worth it?
By the way, the only thing that postdocs (as well as associate lecturers) have in common is that they can't pay their bills (from their food stamps).
You're smart in one area and a delusional bullshit artist when you talk about things you clearly know nothing about. You got busted. Give it a rest. You're a buzzword jockey utterly lacking in self-awareness. Who do you think you're fooling?
Is it about the uncanny similarity I mentioned between the size of finite calculation fields (prime powers only), yielding gaps in between, and the size of infinite calculation fields (also prime powers), and also with gaps in between (the continuum hypothesis)?
Why would that similarity be delusional bullshit? I have never said that I have proved anything about it.
You know, like so many people in the academia, whom Nassim Nicholas Taleb liberally calls IYI ("Intellectual Yet Idiot"), you seem to have an overly strong attachment to useless credentialism, that does not impress anybody who works in technology.
Being smarter than anybody else, means that you can do more. It does not mean: Being good at looking for things you disagree with in order to disparage other people. The problem is, of course, that there is absolutely no other benchmark for merit in the academia besides the ridiculous pieces of paper and citations that they distribute to each other.
Even if I think that you made a mistake somewhere -- probably debatable -- I will not easily call you "delusional" for it. It is rather your irresistible desire to put other people down, that is so stupid.
Is it maybe because elbowing your way through life is such an important requirement in your professional environment? Is putting down others more effective with a view on getting ahead, than doing something remarkable yourself? In that case, I do understand you.
Myself, I prefer working in an environment where people are free to develop ideas and to make mistakes without having to deal with that kind of obnoxious negativity.
You have referenced Taleb many times. I admit, having not read his books, I had always seen him as a charlatan like Malcolm Gladwell. You've convinced me to give him a try. I've downloaded one of his books, "Antifragile" from the library. I'll get back to you with my impressions.
They would be smarter?
Maybe. Maybe with more cognition, some of the stuff that stumps us may be answered. Although the problem would then be (from the point of view of the superior intellect) if you have the right answer, it may be impossible to explain it to simpletons like us. It may just be something like an A.I. telling us: "yes, you have free will, and no, we can't dumb it down that much. Just take our word for it. Also, the universe is conscious."
POINT OF STORY IN THIS THREAD:
MAYBE what the aliens will tell us is that some of our philosophical concerns are nothing more than oddball hangups. Being concerned about free will and the meaning of the universe strikes me as hang ups. For one thing, we probably can not determine whether we have complete free will or are completely determined. And we can not determine what the meaning of the universe is, either. If we want the universe to have a meaning, then just fucking get on with it and give the universe whatever meaning we think it should have -- or no meaning at all.
From what I can tell, we are a mix of determinism and freely chosen acts. And if we are totally determined, then it still feels like free will -- so what difference does it make?
It might make a difference if it's the aliens making us feel like we have free will while they totally determine our actions. Like burning fossil fuels and rainforests to terraform the climate for their arrival.
Besides Lincoln saying so, why? Average Joes are boring people who fail to see the beauty of philosophy, and appealing to them is what is wrong with contemporary philosophy. Asking why Gettier matters is a fundamentally erraneous question - if you want work to be productive or ideas to have practical value, look at sciences. None of that is philosophers' job or purpose. Philosophy is beautiful, it's art, and no more than from a blooming flower do we need to ask from philosophy how it makes itself useful.
I scanned responses to this briefly and might have missed if someone had mentioned this: Around the turn of the century (1900) a patent office worker made the comment that he thought he'd be out of work soon because it seemed like everything that was ever going to be invented had already been invented. Even if this story is just a myth I think it makes a good point about nearsighted thinking.
I don't know if you're from the US. If so, this arrogant attitude is one of the reasons Donald Trump is president. Such contempt. It's also one of the reasons people laugh at philosophy. There was a thread recently that discussed that issue - "Bias against philosophy in scientific circles/forums." So, you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Also, before I became an engineer, I worked for a living doing skilled and unskilled manual labor. I also work with construction workers as part of my present job. I don't find them boring at all. We don't discuss philosophy much, but we do discuss the best way to complete the work and how I might want to change my designs in the future to avoid problems we may be having. A lot of them are really smart and competent. In order for that to work, I need to show them respect. When I do, they show it to me too.
Quoting BlueBanana
That says it all.
I was at the YMCA today. One of the weight lifters, tired and sweaty, had a t-shirt that said - "Suck it up and get on with it." He didn't know he was a philosopher.
I'm with both of you.
At about the same time a scientist, I think it was Lord Kelvin, said that the enterprise of science had reached a conclusion. All that was left was to straighten the drapes and polish the floor. On the other hand, I don't see that we've made much progress on metaphysics since Aristotle and Plato. Epistemology, e.g. the philosophy of science, has progressed mightily. I think it's fair to say that social philosophy has also.
Quoting T Clark
That is a problem of those people. There will always be people who belittle the interests and passions of other people, and the proper response is to not let them get into your head. People have laughed at me for my interest in mathematics, my taste in music, my sense of humour, and many other things, but I enjoy those things so I don't need others to, and the same goes for analyzing whether the JTB theory models knowledge and how accurately it does so.
Cosmology is going through a similar crisis. It seems that the universe might be unnatural, might be part of an infinite multiverse, and if that's the case, there's not a whole lot we can do with that. There are also worries about physics: if the energies required to advance particle physics can only be achieved in colliders the size of the solar system, we're not going to see anything new from that branch of science for a long time.
I started reading "Antifragile" and got about 25% through before I gave up. If you look at the three star reviews in Amazon, the mostly say the same thing - Taleb has some good ideas but they are covered over with six coats of smarty pants self-aggrandizement, name dropping, and insults and character attacks on people who disagree with him. Worse, his ideas are presented in a vague and confusing manner overlain with references to Greek myths and other cultural features that don't seem to have much to do with his point, which it is often hard to get to. Case in point - a table comparing aspects of what he calls fragile, robust, and antifragile systems. As many of the Amazon reviews noted, it seems like he could present his ideas in a 10-page article.
So, does that 10-page article exist? I'd like to give his ideas a fair chance. It seems like he has something to offer.
I had the same experience with attempting to read Antifragile. It's as if he assumes that the reader is an idiot that doesn't understand the concept from a simple explanation, so he spends ages on what the word "antifragile" means and why it's different from "robust". However, it seems there are some interesting ideas in the latter half of the book so getting back to it is on my reading list.