I’ve noticed a growing gap in philosophy is that as science advances, many philosophers do not have the time (or knowledge of x/y etc) to keep up with the relevant fields that have implications for things they are discussing, this is mostly due to the time factor (only so much time in a day).
Are any of you keeping up in relevant fields? i.e. books you’re reading, etc? I want to know what you guys are reading to add to my own reading when I have the time.
David Kellogg Lewis
I would say that people come to believe and identify with long held notions that have worked, to some degree, for them. People generally are unwilling, to the point of violence, to relinquish those ‘beliefs’, whether religious or material. Ego is involved. Not a matter of ‘not enought time’, but not enough intellectual honesty, in many cases.
Peace
As to time constraints, there is some cutting edge thought on the net, and it can be imbibed in small increments for easier digestion! You’ll find your ‘intellectual comfort level’ soon enough…
Happy trails.
I’m reading the Scientific Image by Bas van Fraassen, based on Smear’s recommendation. Good stuff so far, but my training in analytic philosophy is admittedly weak so I’m rather slow on the uptake with this sort of thing. It will take me a good long while to digest this text.
I’m pretty current in my Confucian studies, all things considered. I’m lagging behind on some of the real Chinese thinkers, like Yu Dan and Jiang Qing. But I’m more a Boston Confucian, and so many of my concerns are more oriented towards the Western end of things anyway. Both my means and my ends are, in a modern context, slightly more alien to their particular concerns. Plus a chick who is supposedly a Confucian and manages to make the Analects sell like its Harry Potter? I’m not sure how I feel about that one!
We still know nothing.
I’ve always thought this to be false. I think we know all sorts of things, like you know to look both ways before crossing the street. Right?
contingently, perhaps… does this really constitute philosophical knowledge though?
Do we really have absolute certainty of anything? Ask enough questions, the right questions, and the answer ‘yes’ becomes increasingly dubious…
and let us not be intellectually dubious and cowardly ourselves by dismissing perfectly legitimate questions which perennially remain unanswered… (e.g. I think, but what is this ‘I’ that thinks?)
Let us boldly embrace our ‘intellectual conscience’
If you can define philosophical knowledge, then I bet I can give you an example of it.
I have found myself to be a bit of a romantic in regards to Philosophy. This post-modern analytical stuff is just so far from stimulating for me. Currently I am taking a class in Existentialism, reading some Eastern epistemological studies (The Logic of Nothingness by Nishida Kitaro and the 10th Man by Wei Wu Wei), and reading Crime and Punishment.
P.s. Amor Fati is kinda right (remember Romantic philosopher), because we believe we should look both ways while walking across the street, but where I am from people only look one way (lots of one way streets).
A lot of people who talk philosophy, do so disregarding modern advances in science. One example is the idea of human nature and there being human universal mental mechanisms or adaptations, that cross-culturally exist for things like altruism towards kin or, face-recognition, language-developing, mate-selection, etc etc. anyway, a lot of people in philosophy talking about human nature deny that.
they’re all over the place ignoring evolution and etc as well when making vague references to consciousness not arising from brain activity/cell interaction as well. Just pisses me off, really.
I know when I make mention of human nature philosophically it is actually in reference to not biological traits but traits made by the mind. Not the ones you listed cause most people would actually readily agree with science on that one.
Consciousness is far more complicated than what you have laid out. Because people like Sartre who discuss the pre-reflective, and reflective mind are not arguing your point of a scientific perspective. But maybe you know people who I don’t. Neuroscience may explain what is happening (not a whole lot still) but philosophy tries to explain what it is like.