|
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. |
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Sam Harris is releasing an ebook on Free Will tomorrow. http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-free-willTo preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will. I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case. As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles. Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free. The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross. Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
That is pretty unreflected stuff. I really recommend you to read Kants Critique of Pure Reason. Especially the antinomy chapter. It should enlighten you on what you think about free will. You can get a sneak peek on what its about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomy
Im studying philosophy and free will has always been one of the topics im most interested in. I think there is free will in a certain sense. Its not a completely detached will, but its free in a sense thats its neither only determined by laws of physics, nor 'determined' by 'random' factors, but at least partly a result of a 'causality of freedom'. The law of causality is contradictory in itsself, because there could never be a first cause. Don't overstretch a law of a certain world view. Materialism is a very succesfull, but not the only world view and certainly has its problems, for example big bang theory and everyday life.
On March 06 2012 02:13 liberal wrote:
I think people are really missing the very basic argument being presented here...
Human behavior is either determined or undetermined. There is no third possibility in existence. There is no third possibility that can even be logically understood or defined. What can it possibly mean for something to be neither determined nor undetermined? Some things really are black or white...
You are relying on the law of causality when using such terms and definitions. Nothing is only black and white by itsself unless you make it that. The law you rely on is just a way to interpret the world, but its not proven to be true, nor can it ever be. David Hume wrote a lot of interesting stuff on causality and found, that such a law can never be proven by induction.
Also you rely on the Law of noncontradiction and the Law of excluded middle. But who proved those laws to be true? Noone, right, because its impossible.
|
On March 06 2012 03:28 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 03:02 Saaph wrote:
I think the only obstacle to total determinism in the Universe lies within Quantum Mechanics and more specifically within Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That being said though, this principle only apply at an atomic and subatomic scale. When talking about the brain we are not talking about single atom or particles, and if you're considering a set of particles everything becomes deterministic again due to statistical effects.
That's why I like to talk about 'statistical' determinism when talking about determinism. (Not sure if the two words put together makes sense, but I hope you will get the idea behind it.) QM does not violate determinism, at least not the sensible interpretations. MWI for example is deterministic, has the same evidential basis as CI and is simpler. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quickly losing its adherents and it is a shame that its memes have infected the mainstream culture so much. edit: as to the OP, free will is an illusion and mysticism is retarded. Nothing new here.
Determinism has little to do with interpretations at this point. You have a choice between no hidden variables (which would mean no determinism) or no locality. It's definitely not a matter of "the sensible interpretations choose determinism over locality" or something.
|
I can't take anyone who thinks we don't have a free will seriously. Sorry.
Of course we're influenced by things around us and our genetics, but in the end we make all the decisions. In high school I had days when I woke up and didn't want to go to school, and with varied results. You're saying that on the days when I stayed at home, I was so tired or fed up with school that it was inevitable, and that during the days that I actually got up and went off to school, I was actually fine. I'm not buying it. I think that in both cases, both options were almost equally convincing, so that's why I made different decisions. I know that going up was always the right decision, but it was a hard decision to make. To take the hard road and go against your natural impulses is what builds character.
There's a difference between having tendencies and doing something. Some ppl have tendencies to be violent, but not everyone reacts on the impulses. It's all about character and doing whatever you feel is objectively the right thing, despite the fact that the wrong action seems more convincing.
|
On March 05 2012 21:43 Skilledblob wrote:
is it my decision to move? yes it is, nothing could force me to lift my leg. Instead if I make the conscious decision to move my leg my brain will send out electric impulses that start the biochemic reactions that take place in my muscles so that I can move my leg.
There is no outer force or atomic movement involved here which I can not control. I move because I want to and not because an electron randomly decides to move down my spine into my leg.
so I think your point is invalid.
on the point of free will in religion. Take islam for example there is no consens in that religion if we have free will or not. Some say we do and some say we dont and based on that the texts are different. And the islam is based on the old testament, so it's not as convinient as you make it out jsut because some like to think that religion begins and ends with Christianity.
the only things that you have to do in life is eat, shit, sleep and die the rest is optional.
But why did you decide to lift your leg? Was it in response to the 'stimulus' of reading that you have no free will, leading you to lift your leg to prove that you in fact do have free will? If so, then is that really free will?
|
On March 06 2012 03:34 ninini wrote:
I can't take anyone who thinks we don't have a free will seriously. Sorry.
Of course we're influenced by things around us and our genetics, but in the end we make all the decisions. In high school I had days when I woke up and didn't want to go to school, and with varied results. You're saying that on the days when I stayed at home, I was so tired or fed up with school that it was inevitable, and that during the days that I actually got up and went off to school, I was actually fine. I'm not buying it. I think that in both cases, both options were almost equally convincing, so that's why I made different decisions. I know that going up was always the right decision, but it was a hard decision to make. To take the hard road and go against your natural impulses is what builds character.
There's a difference between having tendencies and doing something. Some ppl have tendencies to be violent, but not everyone reacts on the impulses. It's all about character and doing whatever you feel is objectively the right thing, despite the fact that the wrong action seems more convincing.
They would tell you that unless you are capable of sorcery and able to bend the laws of physics to your will, that you have no will. It's like arguing with a religious person. There can be no discussion because there is no counterargument to "It's just the way it is."
Regardless of whether it's true or not, I see no point in discussing it, because if the general populace thinks they have free will, and our society is operated as if we have free will, then we may as well have free will. It serves no practical purpose to debate otherwise.
|
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil.
Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought.
,
But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will.
But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime.
I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 06 2012 03:33 Anubis390 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Sam Harris is releasing an ebook on Free Will tomorrow. http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-free-willTo preempt that, I felt that I should write down my own thoughts on free will. I simply cannot see how free will can fit into what we know about the universe. The universe is governed by the laws of physics, therefore there is no scope for free will to exist. Everything in the universe, and hence every thought and action made by a human is simply the motion of particles obeying certain laws. Therefore, free will does not exist because we cannot choose how the particles that constitute our body move, they move in accordance with the laws of physics. Random or deterministic, it doesn't matter, because we cannot exert influence nor make choices independent of the motion of particles that are dictated by these laws in either case. As with everything in the universe, every thought and action made by a person is not a result of free will, it's a result of the laws of physics acting on particles. Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free. The only reason theologians and religious people latch on to the completely unscientific notion of free will is to "explain" why bad things happen. If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen? Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? Why is there evil in the world. Because God gave us free will, allegedly. This is then neatly tied into the Original Sin myth, whereby Eve exerted free will and chose to eat from the Garden of Eden, and this frivolous reason somehow necessitated that Jesus die on the cross. Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. That is pretty unreflected stuff. I really recommend you to read Kants Critique of Pure Reason. Especially the antinomy chapter. It should enlighten you on what you think about free will. You can get a sneak peek on what its about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntinomyIm studying philosophy and free will has always been one of the topics im most interested in. I think there is free will in a certain sense. Its not a completely detached will, but its free in a sense thats its neither only determined by laws of physics, nor 'determined' by 'random' factors, but at least partly a result of a 'causality of freedom'. The law of causality is contradictory in itsself, because there could never be a first cause. Don't overstretch a law of a certain world view. Materialism is a very succesfull, but not the only world view and certainly has its problems, for example big bang theory and everyday life. Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 02:13 liberal wrote:
I think people are really missing the very basic argument being presented here...
Human behavior is either determined or undetermined. There is no third possibility in existence. There is no third possibility that can even be logically understood or defined. What can it possibly mean for something to be neither determined nor undetermined? Some things really are black or white... You are relying on the law of causality when using such terms and definitions. Nothing is only black and white by itsself unless you make it that. The law you rely on is just a way to interpret the world, but its not proven to be true, nor can it ever be. David Hume wrote on a lot of interesting stuff on causality and such a law can never be proven by induction.
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
|
On March 06 2012 03:34 ninini wrote:
I can't take anyone who thinks we don't have a free will seriously. Sorry.
Of course we're influenced by things around us and our genetics, but in the end we make all the decisions. In high school I had days when I woke up and didn't want to go to school, and with varied results. You're saying that on the days when I stayed at home, I was so tired or fed up with school that it was inevitable, and that during the days that I actually got up and went off to school, I was actually fine. I'm not buying it. I think that in both cases, both options were almost equally convincing, so that's why I made different decisions. I know that going up was always the right decision, but it was a hard decision to make. To take the hard road and go against your natural impulses is what builds character.
There's a difference between having tendencies and doing something. Some ppl have tendencies to be violent, but not everyone reacts on the impulses. It's all about character and doing whatever you feel is objectively the right thing, despite the fact that the wrong action seems more convincing. The environment is not excluded.
Simply put, in line with your reasoning the argument is that what you believe are choices are just products of your genes and your environment.
|
On March 06 2012 03:41 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will. But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime. I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler +
Why can't a "self" be the same as a physical body?
|
United States15275 Posts
On March 06 2012 03:48 zefreak wrote:
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid.
|
On March 06 2012 03:49 Hypertension wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 03:41 Fwmeh wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will. But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime. I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler + Why can't a "self" be the same as a physical body?
This is kind of insufficient for discussion about free will. If my muscle twitches or something I ate makes me vomit, it's not really something that my "self" is doing; it's not something that comes out of my free will. We don't say like for instance "I am now mitosising my cells" and attribute all our body's activities to ourselves. So the self is some kind of specific portion of the mind/brain that needs more description than just "the whole body" or "the whole brain."
|
On March 06 2012 03:34 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 03:28 zefreak wrote:On March 06 2012 03:02 Saaph wrote:
I think the only obstacle to total determinism in the Universe lies within Quantum Mechanics and more specifically within Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. That being said though, this principle only apply at an atomic and subatomic scale. When talking about the brain we are not talking about single atom or particles, and if you're considering a set of particles everything becomes deterministic again due to statistical effects.
That's why I like to talk about 'statistical' determinism when talking about determinism. (Not sure if the two words put together makes sense, but I hope you will get the idea behind it.) QM does not violate determinism, at least not the sensible interpretations. MWI for example is deterministic, has the same evidential basis as CI and is simpler. The Copenhagen Interpretation is quickly losing its adherents and it is a shame that its memes have infected the mainstream culture so much. edit: as to the OP, free will is an illusion and mysticism is retarded. Nothing new here. Determinism has little to do with interpretations at this point. You have a choice between no hidden variables (which would mean no determinism) or no locality. It's definitely not a matter of "the sensible interpretations choose determinism over locality" or something.
A perfect inductive reasoner (IE solomonoff induction) would choose some interpretations over others, because they are strictly simpler. I'm not sure I understand your response, perhaps you could expand?
|
On March 06 2012 03:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 03:48 zefreak wrote:
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid.
Excuse you, I know the difference between philosophy and science (and as someone who has studied the philosophy of science, probably know more than you about it).
|
On March 06 2012 03:52 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 03:49 Hypertension wrote:On March 06 2012 03:41 Fwmeh wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will. But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime. I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler + Why can't a "self" be the same as a physical body? This is kind of insufficient for discussion about free will. If my muscle twitches or something I ate makes me vomit, it's not really something that my "self" is doing; it's not something that comes out of my free will. We don't say like for instance "I am now mitosising my cells" and attribute all our body's activities to ourselves. So the self is some kind of specific portion of the mind/brain that needs more description than just "the whole body" or "the whole brain." Depends on what makes up a self. I'd lean more towards the whole body than a specific part of the brain, especially if you include your past in your "self".
|
United States15275 Posts
On March 06 2012 03:57 zefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 03:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On March 06 2012 03:48 zefreak wrote:
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid. Excuse you, I know the difference between philosophy and science (and as someone who has studied the philosophy of science, probably know more than you about it).
Oooooooo, scary.
Hard to tell when you say something that foolish. "Confused ideas", wtf does that even mean? Sounds like something Dennett would say. 
In either case you would sound a lot less arrogant if you provided the criteria by which you separate Kant and Aristotle from philosophy "worth reading".
|
On March 06 2012 03:52 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 03:49 Hypertension wrote:On March 06 2012 03:41 Fwmeh wrote:On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Religions abuse this nonexistent notion of free will in an attempt to explain away the gaping flaws of the God hypothesis and the existence of evil. Yeah, this was in itself totally not a bait. Today's society leans, at least in the western world, heavily towards individualism, and in outside America also towards agnostic/atheistic individualism. The idea of free will is very central in this school of thought. , But really, this discussion is really attacking the problem from the wrong end. Before we get to the idea of free will, we would have to assign an entity to which we assign this free will, a "self". And science currently have no good way of defining a "self" in a way which agrees with our general idea of it. And since we cannot seem to even find a "self", it would not make sense to think this "self" has free will, no matter how we define free will. But like I said, our individualistic society would have a hard time coping without the notion of a "self," so it will probably live on at least for my lifetime. I dislike youtube videos, but I guess I should be pre-emptive in this case: + Show Spoiler + Why can't a "self" be the same as a physical body? This is kind of insufficient for discussion about free will. If my muscle twitches or something I ate makes me vomit, it's not really something that my "self" is doing; it's not something that comes out of my free will. We don't say like for instance "I am now mitosising my cells" and attribute all our body's activities to ourselves. So the self is some kind of specific portion of the mind/brain that needs more description than just "the whole body" or "the whole brain."
If I was vomiting I would have no problem saying "I am vomiting". I wouldn't say that an involuntary part of my gastroinstinal tract has decided to vomit. Why does the self need a better description than "the whole body". It seems perfectly sufficient.
|
On March 06 2012 03:33 Anubis390 wrote:That is pretty unreflected stuff. I really recommend you to read Kants Critique of Pure Reason. Especially the antinomy chapter. It should enlighten you on what you think about free will. You can get a sneak peek on what its about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntinomyIm studying philosophy and free will has always been one of the topics im most interested in. I think there is free will in a certain sense. Its not a completely detached will, but its free in a sense thats its neither only determined by laws of physics, nor 'determined' by 'random' factors, but at least partly a result of a 'causality of freedom'. The law of causality is contradictory in itsself, because there could never be a first cause. Don't overstretch a law of a certain world view. Materialism is a very succesfull, but not the only world view and certainly has its problems, for example big bang theory and everyday life.
I'm studying Philosophy as well and i was just about to give the same answer. Feel kissed and hugged for your reasonable act of free will 
|
On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.
Well, the debate is typically framed in terms of destiny vs free will. However, quantum mechanics throws a wrench in that and argues that neither position is correct. We may not have free will but our destiny is not set in stone either.
Then again until physics comes up with a grand unified theory to reconcile the randomness at the quantum level with the determinism at the macro level, we may never know.
|
The illusion of free will is enough to convince the general populace it exists.
|
On March 06 2012 03:59 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 03:57 zefreak wrote:On March 06 2012 03:51 CosmicSpiral wrote:On March 06 2012 03:48 zefreak wrote:
I recommend reading less philosophy and more science. Or if you must stick with philosophy, read the good shit and not Kant/Aristotle/whoever happened to be historically important but full of confused ideas. BTW Hume is one of the most misunderstood philosophers of his time. The Problem of Induction says nothing about determinism. It has to do with Hume's epistemology, not ontology. Hume was a determinist, but a skeptic when it comes to epistemology.
Anyone that studies philosophy but doesn't focus on contemporary work (formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, etc) is a hack snake oil salesman who is less than worthless to our collective knowledge-base. Yes, I realize this accounts for 99% of philosophy graduates.
Only a person who thinks of philosophy as a science would say something this stupid. Excuse you, I know the difference between philosophy and science (and as someone who has studied the philosophy of science, probably know more than you about it). Oooooooo, scary. Hard to tell when you say something that foolish. "Confused ideas", wtf does that even mean?
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. By confused ideas I am mainly referring to the heavy dose of intuition that played a role in their reasoning. Intuitions that, in later years, seem unfounded and confused. Ancient greeks had intuitions about nature and the cosmos that played a large role in their philosophy. Anyone who studies (and actually reads) Plato and thinks he is learning something profound is probably too lost to appreciate contemporary movements that are actually informed by modern neuroscience and computer science/probability theory/physics. For an example on modern epistemology, I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Mainstream-Formal-Epistemology-Vincent-Hendricks/dp/0521718988/?tag=vglnk-c319-20 .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
