"Philosophy Is All Nonsense Anyway!"

By -
It is an interesting pattern that I've seen repeated a few times. Someone with no experience in or willingness to learn philosophy nevertheless ventures out upon the philosophical sea. A real philosopher takes a look at his work, and notes it is terrible philosophy. At that point, the lightweight often pulls this move:

"The physicist responded to the review by calling the philosopher who wrote it 'moronic' and arguing that philosophy, unlike physics, makes no progress and is rather boring, if not totally useless."

OK, Professor Krauss, if philosophy is boring and useless, why did you bother writing a book centered around a (very bad) philosophical theory? Why did philosophy only become boring and useless once it turned out that you are awful at it?

Comments

  1. traumerei2:10 PM

    Philosophy only *seems* like non-sense to those who have not yet been saved by Stefan Molyneux.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeKys6zog2M

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:06 PM

    I was discussing philosophy the other day with a coworker who is actually a pretty smart guy. Sure, I am not a philosopher, nor am I all that well-read in philosophy (or anything else), but it is something that interests me. Anyhow, another coworker overheard our conversation and said, "Philosopher? Isn't that another word for bullshitter?" My reaction was classic. I looked at him, turned back to my friend, and began, "yeah, so anyway, as I was saying..."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike B.10:34 PM

    I've encountered this myself. The frustrating part is that they refuse to admit that they're doing philosophy. Instead, they insist that they're just talking about "science" or "reality."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more