techonology vs ideas (BBOARD GENERAL)

TACKER:  tidux (Jonathan Lane)
SUBJECT: .. technology vs ideas
DATE:    08-Sep-15 19:12:13
HOST:    faeroes

Part of the problem with us "IT guys" acting like people who don't
understand computers are stupid, is that when we deal with people at work who
don't understand computers, they're very often being idiots about things that
they are *supposed to know* as part of their job description.  Nobody faults an
elementary school teacher for not knowing how to maintain a web server, but they
should at least be able to copy and paste properly.  Another problem is that we
tend to cluster together with others in similar skill levels, like on /. or SDF.
This means that our level of assumed basic skill for people we talk to is higher
by default.  Often it takes talking to beginners or outright technophobes to
reset our expectations to normal levels.

I think that the 21st century's great contributions to philosophy will come out
of neuroscience, genetics, and computer science rather than philosophy per se.
Learning more about the function and development of the human mind, or creating
artificial ones in silicon, will provide definitive answers, not speculation.
Even the age old "but what if the universe is a simulation?" question may be
answered definitively by physicists.  Philosophy as a discipline should stick to
asking questions that science can't answer yet.


TACKER:  papa (David Meyer)
SUBJECT: .. technology vs ideas
DATE:    08-Sep-15 23:00:29
HOST:    iceland

tidux's second paragraph is a good description of the problem with
contemporary Philosophy: it has ceded all its mind-space to science.

# Is it a problem? What is a better situation for philosophy?

Metaphysics has be consigned to religion. Physics has been ceded to
science. Philosophy so longer has anything meaningful to talk about.

# Metaphysics as a branch of philosophy has received less emphasis
# since the Enlightenment for two reasons:
# 1. Many metaphysical questions have been taken over by science.
# 2. The belief that metaphysics without science is meaningless.
# But there are other philosophical fields unaffected by the above 
# situation. Also, 1. does not include all metaphysical questions, 
# and not all accept 2.

TACKER:  framling (Pete Ley)
SUBJECT: .. technology vs ideas
DATE:    09-Sep-15 01:52:06
HOST:    sdf

There seems to be a lot of pseudo-philosophizing in this thread. Not all
ideas are good ideas. If you think you have something important to say, you
should be prepared to back it up with something. This is a public forum,
not a philosophical echo chamber. You shouldn't expect anyone to agree with
you without considering your position first.

Also, let's assume that the dubious statement that metaphysics has been
ceded to religion is true. (And I am assuming that physics is better left
to science and mathematics than to the current incarnation of philosophy.)
It doesn't follow that philosophy has nothing important left to talk about.
What about the other branches of philosophy? What have ethics and
epistemology been ceded to? What of the actual philosophies of science and
religion? Philosophy isn't just physics and metaphysics, so even if it has
nothing to discuss in those areas (which it most certainly does), it is
still relevent.


TACKER:  papa (David Meyer)
SUBJECT: .. technology vs ideas
DATE:    09-Sep-15 13:46:04
HOST:    iceland

Ouch, framling! You caught me guilty of the same pseudo-philosophizing for
which I was ragging on mjt.

My post was a riff off of tidux's observation on the greater contribution
to philosophical development coming from science and engineering than from
the traditional field of philosophy to a lament on the secularization of
philosophy (that has been going on since the Enlightenment. Yes, that horse
has left the barn.)

It boils down to a rant that I don't like contemporary philosophy because
it is Godless. A sentiment, and just a sentiment I realize not everyone
shares.

But I tried for a clever comment instead of thinking it through and write
something worthy of discussion. Sorry to have wasted the BBOARD bytes.


TACKER:  framling (Pete Ley)
SUBJECT: .. technology vs ideas
DATE:    09-Sep-15 17:07:23
HOST:    sdf

papa, can you elaborate a bit more on your feelings about the
secularization of philosophy? I would be interested to hear it.


-----

I sat down to think of an answer for framling, and realized that my
problem with philosophy is more about me than it is about philosophy.

Long, long ago when I was young I was very interested in philosophy
because I wanted to answer the questions, "What is the meaning of my
life?" and "What is good in life?"

I didn't find answers that satisfied until I converted to
Catholicism, which gave me the answers to those big questions on the
far side of a leap of faith. It still takes reason to apply those
answers to specific situations, but I am relieved of having to sweat
figuring out the big picture.

For a while, I thought philosophy might provide a way to communicate
with those who hadn't taken the leap, but that proved mostly
futile. After all, its not philosophy or logic that has led me to
where I am, and most atheists and materialists I have encountered
have reached their position not by logic, but by taking a leap of
something like faith in the opposite direction.

There are still interesting discussions in philosophy, but they will
always be circumscribed by the beliefs that each participant holds to
be non-negotiable truths.

As for the secularization of philosophy, on reflection its not as big
of a deal as I thought when I made my first post. It's true that
around the Enlightenment, the collective Western mind made a big
shift from religious to secular, which many orthodox Catholics still
regret. However, there are certainly many philosophical fields that
do not necessarily depend on theology, so the emergence
of secular philosophy is natural and positive.