In my limited experience, the “hard problems” in philosophy are the problems which are either poorly defined and so people keep arguing about definitions without admitting it, or poorly analyzed, so people keep mixing decision theory with cognitive science, for example. While the traditional philosophy is good at asking (meta-)questions and noticing broad similarities, it is nearly useless at solving them. When a philosopher tries to honestly analyze a deep question, it usually stops being philosophy and becomes logic, linguistics, decision theory, computer science, physics or something else that qualifies as science. Hence Pearl and Kahneman and Russell, some Wittgenstein, Popper...
In my limited experience, the “hard problems” in philosophy are the problems which are either poorly defined and so people keep arguing about definitions without admitting it, or poorly analyzed, so people keep mixing decision theory with cognitive science, for example.
See also how many of the comments in this thread amounted to “if by sound you mean ‘acoustic wave’ it does, if you mean ‘auditory sensation’ it doesn’t”.
Wait, what? There’s little evidence of anything better than philosophy at solving problems? How about physics, cognitive science, computer science, mathematics, etc.?
Presumably its the place where questions that can’t readily be answered, (or even formulated, .or may not even really be questions), live. A sin bin. The only realistic alternative is sweeping them under the carpet, since the idea of all questions automagically being answerable is a nirvana.
Philosophy is the best thing there is at being philosophy. Its worse at answering its in questions than other fields are at answering their own questions, but its questions are harder,. It isnt broken in the sense that there is any easy way of fixing it, or a comparable alternative doing the same job,
It is very important for rationality to notice the differences between
1 Inferior compared to a real , comparable thing
2 Inferior compared to unmplemented but realistic alternatives.
The system for generating new fields of research? After all, if it generates other areas that are no longer philosophy reasonably regularly, then that actually creates value.
Does it (still) do so, though? I’m aware that most of what is now science used to be called “natural philosophy”, but nowadays it doesn’t really seem like there’s anything left.
Is it a system for generating new fields of research, or is it just a catch-all bin where all the nebulous, hazy, and vague things are kept until they firm up enough to become fields of research?
How about philosophy of physics, philosophy of mathematics?
Do these things solve problems in physics or in mathematics? If so, do they solve them better than the actual fields do? If not, what problems do they solve?
Also, why should I care about these so-called philosophical problems?
“Philosophy isnt doing well enough at solving its problems compared to a realistic alternative” doesn’t follow from “I don’t care about philosophical problems”.
also can’t solve the [philosophical] problems arising from physics
Citation needed.
Well, those disciplines exist. Maybe some evidence that they dont need to is required.
In my limited experience, the “hard problems” in philosophy are the problems which are either poorly defined and so people keep arguing about definitions without admitting it, or poorly analyzed, so people keep mixing decision theory with cognitive science, for example. While the traditional philosophy is good at asking (meta-)questions and noticing broad similarities, it is nearly useless at solving them. When a philosopher tries to honestly analyze a deep question, it usually stops being philosophy and becomes logic, linguistics, decision theory, computer science, physics or something else that qualifies as science. Hence Pearl and Kahneman and Russell, some Wittgenstein, Popper...
See also how many of the comments in this thread amounted to “if by sound you mean ‘acoustic wave’ it does, if you mean ‘auditory sensation’ it doesn’t”.
There’s little evidence of anything else being better at solving them, so that is largely nirvana fallacy,
Wait, what? There’s little evidence of anything better than philosophy at solving problems? How about physics, cognitive science, computer science, mathematics, etc.?
When a branch of philosophy becomes useful at solving problems, people give it a new name and no longer consider it part of philosophy.
Then what is philosophy supposed to be? Just a field for asking questions (but not answering them)?
Presumably its the place where questions that can’t readily be answered, (or even formulated, .or may not even really be questions), live. A sin bin. The only realistic alternative is sweeping them under the carpet, since the idea of all questions automagically being answerable is a nirvana.
Philosophy is the best thing there is at being philosophy. Its worse at answering its in questions than other fields are at answering their own questions, but its questions are harder,. It isnt broken in the sense that there is any easy way of fixing it, or a comparable alternative doing the same job,
It is very important for rationality to notice the differences between
1 Inferior compared to a real , comparable thing
2 Inferior compared to unmplemented but realistic alternatives.
3 Inferior compared to nirvanas.
The system for generating new fields of research? After all, if it generates other areas that are no longer philosophy reasonably regularly, then that actually creates value.
Does it (still) do so, though? I’m aware that most of what is now science used to be called “natural philosophy”, but nowadays it doesn’t really seem like there’s anything left.
Is it a system for generating new fields of research, or is it just a catch-all bin where all the nebulous, hazy, and vague things are kept until they firm up enough to become fields of research?
Them=”the hard problems in philosophy”, not “problems”
How about philosophy of physics, philosophy of mathematics? Why do they exist?
Do these things solve problems in physics or in mathematics? If so, do they solve them better than the actual fields do? If not, what problems do they solve?
Are those the topic of the discussion? No.
Philosophical problems arising from the non philosophical fields mentioned.
Note the doube whammy. Physics can’t solve the average philosophical problem, and also can’t solve the problems arising from physics,
Like?
EDIT: Also, why should I care about these so-called philosophical problems?
Citation needed.
See here and here.
“Philosophy isnt doing well enough at solving its problems compared to a realistic alternative” doesn’t follow from “I don’t care about philosophical problems”.
Well, those disciplines exist. Maybe some evidence that they dont need to is required.