I’d like to frame philosophical undertaking in a way that highlights practical applications and consequences
What do you think of my discussion of usefulness in 1.6? I agree my discussion is mindy but I feel like all philosophy is mindy(even the purportedly anti-mindy variety)
I think you’re conflating “thinking” or “developing mental models” with “doing philosophy”
In my mind, philosophical approaches tend to be bad. Extrapolation across incommensurable reference classes, doubling down on reifications, specialising in domains that are both abstract and ill-defined (not due to lack of trying!)
Also, once you disentagle “philosophy” and “developing mental models”, it’s quite clear to me that mental models and empirics go hand in hand, in an interpenetrating fashion. Claiming progress in the name of philosophy seems more like stealing credit. And no, I’m not saying that no philosopher has ever come up with a fruitful frame; I think this happens in the rare cases where philosophy meets enough natural invariants through empirics; though I do claim that the people into philosophy likely would have contributed more if not infected by philosophical antipatterns.
I mean, have you ever been to a philosophical cafe? Or talked to someone very into either hegel or analytic philosophy? Brrrr
What do you think of my discussion of usefulness in 1.6? I agree my discussion is mindy but I feel like all philosophy is mindy(even the purportedly anti-mindy variety)
I think you’re conflating “thinking” or “developing mental models” with “doing philosophy”
In my mind, philosophical approaches tend to be bad. Extrapolation across incommensurable reference classes, doubling down on reifications, specialising in domains that are both abstract and ill-defined (not due to lack of trying!)
More on this: https://meaningness.substack.com/p/undoing-philosophy
Also, once you disentagle “philosophy” and “developing mental models”, it’s quite clear to me that mental models and empirics go hand in hand, in an interpenetrating fashion. Claiming progress in the name of philosophy seems more like stealing credit. And no, I’m not saying that no philosopher has ever come up with a fruitful frame; I think this happens in the rare cases where philosophy meets enough natural invariants through empirics; though I do claim that the people into philosophy likely would have contributed more if not infected by philosophical antipatterns.
I mean, have you ever been to a philosophical cafe? Or talked to someone very into either hegel or analytic philosophy? Brrrr