Probably make some snarky remark about how people who think they are free of politics are in reality in the grip of one of the more deadly forms of it.
mtraven
Karma: 204
After posting that I felt even more unsure about my assertion about Buddhism and introspection than I had indicated, so did some Googling...here’s some support from an actual Buddhist, though I’m guessing there is a wide variety of opinion on this question.
I exaggerated a bit. The points I was trying to make: we can only weakly introspect; the term “introspection” is misleading (I think “reflection”, mentioned by another commenter, is better); we are in a strong sense strangers to ourselves, and our apparent ability to introspect is misleading.
I am only a dabbler in meditation and Buddhism, but I think an actual Buddhist would NOT characterize meditation as introspection. The point of it is not to have a self more aware of itself, but to reveal the illusory nature of the self (I’m sure that is a drastic oversimplification, at best).
I think you miss the point of the linked article, which is not that we are “not very good” at introspection, but that introspection is literally impossible. We don’t have any better access to our own brain processes than we do to a random persons. We don’t have little instruments hooked up to our internal mental mechanisms telling us what’s going on. I fear that people who think they do are somewhat fooling themselves.
That doesn’t mean we can’t have models of ourselves, or think about how the brain works, or notice patterns of mental behavior and make up better explanations for them, and get better at that. But I think calling it introspection is misleading and begs the question, as it conjures up images of a magic eye that can be turned inward. We don’t have those.
Great post, a very lucid account of your experiences, thank you.
As it happens I was just contemplating writing something along the lines of “mysticism for rationalists”, but I think you may have it covered.
Well, I deliberately left out the source because I didn’t think it would play well in this Peoria of thought—it’s from his book of essays Farewell to Reason. Link to gbooks with some context.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education.
-- Paul Feyerabend
Right, and I’m asking you what you think that “something else” is.
Hell, how would I know? Let’s say “thinking” for the sake of argument.
I’d also re-assert my challenge to you: if philosophy’s arguments don’t rest on some evidence of some kind, what distinguishes it from nonsense/fiction?
People think it makes sense.
“Definitions may be given in this way of any field where a body of definite knowledge exists. But philosophy cannot be so defined. Any definition is controversial and already embodies a philosophic attitude. The only way to find out what philosophy is, is to do philosophy.” -- Bertrand Russell
I’m not at all a fan of Hegel, and Heidegger I don’t really understand, but I linked to a paper that describes the interaction of Heideggerian philosophy and AI which might answer your question.
I still think you don’t have your categories straight. Philosophy does not make “claims” that are proved or disproved by evidence (although there is a relatively new subfield called “experimental philosophy”). Think of it as providing alternate points of view.
To illustrate: your idea that the only valid utterances are those that are supported by empirical evidence is a philosophy. That philosophy itself can’t be supported by empirical evidence; it rests on something else.
“Often people who dismiss philosophy end up going over the same ground philosophers trode hundreds or thousands of years ago.”
See the paper on the Heideggerian critique of AI I posted earlier.
The notion that we have Platonic a priori knowledge looks pretty silly without a great deal of massaging as we learn more about the mechanism of brain development.
Oh? I would think that one of the lessons of neuroscience is that we are in fact hardwired for a great many things.
The language in impenatrable because they have nothing to say.
How do you know? That is, what evidence other than your lack of understanding do you have for this?
I think you are making a category error. If something makes claims about phenomena that can be proved/disproved with evidence in the world, it’s science, not philosophy.
So the question is whether philosophy’s position as meta to science and everything else can provide utility. I’ve found it useful, YMMV.
BTW here is the latest round of Heideggerian critique of AI (pdf) which, again, you may or may not find useful.
A few points:
Philisophy is (by definition, more or less) meta to everything else. By its nature, it has to question everything, including things that here seem to be unuqestionable, such as rationality and reductionism. The elevation of these into unquestionable dogma creates a somewhat cult-like environment.
Often people who dismiss philosophy end up going over the same ground philosophers trode hundreds or thousands of years ago. That’s one reason philosophers emphasize the history of ideas so much. It’s probably a mistake to think you are so smart you will avoid all the pitfalls they’ve already fallen into.
I agree with the linked post of Eliezer’s that much of analytic philosophy (and AI) is mostly just slapping formal terms over unexamined everyday ideas, which is why I find most of it bores me to tears.
Continental philosophy, on the other hand, if you can manage to make sense of it, actually can provide new perspectives on the world, and in that sense is worthwhile. Don’t assume that just because you can’t understand it, it doesn’t have anything to say. Complaining because they use what seems like an impenetrable language is about on the level of an American traveling to Europe and complaining that the people there don’t speak English. That said, Sturgeon’s law definitely applies, perhaps at the 99% level.
I’m recomending Bruno Latour to everyone these days. He’s a French sociologist of science and philosopher, and if you can get past the very French style of abstraction he uses, he can be mind-blowing in the manner described above.
Allow me to link to this post on the social construction of Santa Claus
This is a guy who calls for the assassination of politicians on his blog. I’m not sure you want him on your side, for both tactical and ethical reasons. Not to mention that an easy resort to violence doesn’t really suggest rationalism, but YMMV.
What a great post. Of course, I like it because it undermines the very reason most of you are here. Basically people aren’t all that rational, they require something to praise, something to devote themselves to. You guys are trying to make “reason” be the object of devotion, but it’s not a great fit to the mental slot (and it’s been tried before).
One other note: the advantage of having your praise-object be something remote and universal (like God, or the Tsar (pretty remote for most Rus)) is that if your are expressing your allegiance to Lord Alfred and Lord Bob is in the next town over, Lords Alfred and Bob and their followers might have to have a war to determine who is indeed the deserving one. There’s some kind of dynamics going on that favors larger-scale objects of worship and larger-scale social alliances.
This post is based on the (very common) mistake of equating religious practice and religious faith. Religion is only incidentally about what you believe; the more important components are community and ritual practice. From that perspective, it is a lot easier to believe that religion can be beneficial. What you think about the Trinity, for instance, is less important than the fact that you go to Mass and see other members of your community there and engage in these bizarre activities together.
There is an enormous blindspot about society in the libertarian/rationalist community, of which the above is just one manifestation.
Here’s the exact opposite advice. I wouldn’t even bother posting it here except it’s from one of the major rationalists of the 20th century:
“In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held.… Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once enlarges the scope of our thinking, and helps us to realize how foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which has a different temper of mind.” —Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy
The fact that people aren’t jumping in to compete with lower-costs journals makes me suspect that it isn’t that easy. But it’s still not at all obvious why academic journals cost so much.
Huh? People are most certainly jumping in with zero-cost (to read) journals such as PLoS and others. The open-access publishing movement is not obscure and I’m surprise to see that people here aren’t aware of them.
The reason existing journals cost so much is that publishers can charge monopoly rents based on their ownership of a high-status imprint. That game is not going to last very much longer, IMO.
The Amazon example doesn’t seem to be that illustrative of the concept you are trying to get across, mostly because the reason academic institutions don’t sell computation is that they aren’t set up for it, not that commerce is considered evil. They have no problem charging for other services, such as tuition.
Here’s a better one: police, military, and government in general. Everyone in that role has slightly different moral codes than the rest of us, in that they are able to legitimately employ violence in various forms, and for the most part we are willing to cede that role to them. The government is our shabbos goy, although too often a master rather than servant.
No offense taken.
BTW I have written quite a bit since 2007(!) on the relationship of rationalism and politics, see here for a starting pont.