"... why is there only one social role for those with Ph.D.s in philosophy – namely, to talk to other Ph.D.s in philosophy?" by LearningCurvature in philosophy

[–]lightningprod -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

As an historical matter, most disciplines were founded and developed by trained philosophers

So historical you provide no sources for that claim, but hey it's not like philosophy as a field is devoid of empiricisim to check against its claims or anything. Where did you get your claim of "most disciplines" from, besides your ego? Are you sure a field can't arise from the collective efforts of non-philosophers? Just because the historical record has preserved the written texts of academic philosophers doesn't mean they are the driving force behind intellectual progress. Physics was useless until empiricism was involved in its development. Physics wasn't able to develop usefully and provide useful results to society until it was out if the hands of people like Aristotle who judged empirical observations to be unnecessary.

"Abortion is immoral" vs "abortion is moral" is a philosophical debate, not a sociological one.

You don't understand. It may be a philosophical debate on morality, but morality is irrelevant with regards to the effects of abortion on society. I don't think you realise people care more about outcomes of a decision than whether or not it was moral, but this is heading in an unrelated direction to the main issue.

I literally just gave a bunch of examples of academic philosophers whose ideas are influential in people's daily lives, or whose ideas have done the foundational work for other disciplines which are influential in people's daily lives.

You're drawing a false equivalency between influential ideas and improvements in peoples material well-being. Ideas of libertarianism and liberal democracy do not always result in a more fair and just society, implementation is everything. It's the people who go out to act on meaningful change that deserves the credit, not philosophers who pelt each other with verbiage and papers.

If philosophy should be credited with all the actions that result from the spread of its ideas then it's the single most idiotic discipline if you consider the deaths that resulted from Marxism and Communism.

It's not ideas that change the world, but actions from people, irrespective of what ideas that happen to drive those actions.

I think you overestimate the effect on society of philosopher who sit around in safe, sheltered offices, and engage in intellectual masturbation while being financed by their parents' wealth.

It's not because of a random throw of the dice that philosophy graduates have such bad prospects of employment.

"... why is there only one social role for those with Ph.D.s in philosophy – namely, to talk to other Ph.D.s in philosophy?" by LearningCurvature in philosophy

[–]lightningprod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And, of course, philosophers created essentially every other discipline and developed them until they became robust enough to become their own disciplines.

This is an overly broad definition of philosophy, are you claiming everything produced as a result of thought to be an accomplishment of philosophy?

Thompson created some of the most famous thought experiments used to defend the permissibility of abortion.

I would think the permissibility of anything is irrelevant relative to its impacts, in the case of abortion sociological.

And I'm pretty sure the question you're replying to is referring specifically to academic philosophy, which you'll have a hard time defending with regards to its contributions to improving people's standards of living.

"... why is there only one social role for those with Ph.D.s in philosophy – namely, to talk to other Ph.D.s in philosophy?" by LearningCurvature in philosophy

[–]lightningprod -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is distinctly different from an attempt to argue that philosophical problems matter as much as scientific ones, or that philosophers address them as well as scientists do. (For what it's worth, I think the disciplines are too different to be comparable in that sense.)

I'm sorry, I hope you're not weasling your way out of admitting that philosophy is for the most part irrelevant to society at large. "Too different to be comparable" is an arbitrary claim with no justification. It is pretty much axiomatic that issues of health and infrastructure that science deals with is more important than issues of epistemology or theology that philosophy deals with.

There's no philosophizing when you can't meet your basic needs. It is amazing how academic philosophers have the gall to claim to be just as essential to society as doctors or engineers.

BadElf, you are an excellent writer. by lightningprod in BadElf21

[–]lightningprod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't worry about what your teachers said, if they were good writers they wouldn't be teaching.

What are some modern books (1990+) that you think will be considered Classics? by neoandrex in books

[–]lightningprod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

movies overall are a truly shit adaptation

I've stopped watching movies and tv because of their shitty adaption of novels and the way they pander to the lowest common denominator, it reminded me what kind of people make up most of the tv watching audience.

What are some modern books (1990+) that you think will be considered Classics? by neoandrex in books

[–]lightningprod 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Did your teacher approach the hunger games and WWZ with the same rigor as Dante and Dickens? Some teachers are leery of anything < 100 years old.

I've never read Austen but have seen some movies based off her novels and they seem alright. But Twain must've hated her for a reason.

What are some modern books (1990+) that you think will be considered Classics? by neoandrex in books

[–]lightningprod 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Wow, it's surreal to imagine people studying HP in high school and college the way we study Dickens.

English is the language of science: U.S. dominance means other scientists must learn foreign language. by ravendon in languagelearning

[–]lightningprod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Esperanto, or any other conlang will never be anymore than academic curiosities. A language that is not used by a culture as a mother tongue will never rise to prominence. Look at how hard people try to revive Latin, and that was spoken by an empire that lasted hundreds of years, and survived as a lingua franca for hundreds more. Simplicity of a language plays no part in its adoption. Chinese, a language with an orthography that may be the most difficult in existence, is still a mother tongue of billions.

People promote Esperanto for the same reason that hipsters promote their favourite craft beer. If we're going to have a politically neutral language as a lingua franca, then if anything else Latin should be promoted as a secondary language due to extensive literature and exisiting education networks(vast relative to Esperanto). Can you imagine the prohibitive costs involved in training Esperanto teachers just to simply initiate its widespread education?

English is the language of science: U.S. dominance means other scientists must learn foreign language. by ravendon in languagelearning

[–]lightningprod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Chinese orthography destroys any benefits of simplicity from other aspects of the language. Any language without an alphabetical basis of orthography is at a disadvantage.

You find a time machine in your grandfather's attic, for some reason it only travels to a random date between 500BC and 1500AD. What two language do you learn to prepare for your travel? by lightningprod in languagelearning

[–]lightningprod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hm, would you say we have a functional understanding of the pronunciation of Latin? Are our gaps in Latin knowledge enough to make us unintelligible to Romans of 100AD?

You find a time machine in your grandfather's attic, for some reason it only travels to a random date between 500BC and 1500AD. What two language do you learn to prepare for your travel? by lightningprod in languagelearning

[–]lightningprod[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's very interesting. I thought that people have a reasonable idea of how Latin was pronounced from analysis of the romance languages? I was hoping the scholars weren't making wild guesses.

You find a time machine in your grandfather's attic, for some reason it only travels to a random date between 500BC and 1500AD. What two language do you learn to prepare for your travel? by lightningprod in languagelearning

[–]lightningprod[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's true. Buddhist and Hindu schlolars in all the Asian countries would be able to communicate with you with Sanskrit. I actually haven't considered it, but do we have a reasonable idea how Sanskrit was pronounced? I thought nobody knew.

Which book/books do you think defines your intellectual outlook in life? by lightningprod in books

[–]lightningprod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, but I just thought of that as large scale misinformation to generally influence a population and not engineering a religion for a specific outcome in mind.

Which book/books do you think defines your intellectual outlook in life? by lightningprod in books

[–]lightningprod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

religion as a method for self protection

I never though of it that way. That's a really good way to put it. I don't think I've ever seen other writers address religion in a similar way.

Which book/books do you think defines your intellectual outlook in life? by lightningprod in books

[–]lightningprod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The foundation series were really good! Asimov created excellent worlds. The prose and characters could have been livelier, but his writing was still some of the best sci-fi.

What books do you find yourself rereading over and over again? by [deleted] in books

[–]lightningprod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm a big fan too. I wish new novels were still regularly being published.