Hegel BTFO?

>NO DISCERNIBLE MOVEMENT

Not an argument.

>study math and aeronautical engineering for years
>somehow subconsciously learn about ethics

Ethics is nothing more than coming up with lists of arbitrary rules, anyway. Pointless.

PHILOSOPHERS BTFO

paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

le knowledge/interests should all be about the material use they apply

t. Paul CEO (((Graham)))

>arbitrary

This is a copy paste reword of typical vain opinions from someone that's never read philosophy.

Ironically, that's more or less what Hegel thought about ethics as well.

>Paul Graham (born 13 November 1964[1]) is an English computer scientist, venture capitalist, and essayist.

He studied philosophy as an undergraduate...

i.e. he took the courses but didn't show up to lectures or do the reading and passed with a C

>as an undergraduate
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

So does Sam Harris. That speaks for itself...

...

Paul Graham's IQ is probably pretty high. Besides, it's not as most of what you would learn in an undergrad in philosophy in the US is of mind-bending difficulty, or anything.

>Cambridge has always had a school of Hegelians

Yes, but not post-metaphysical ones. F.H. Bradley & co. were very much pro-metaphysics. Wish I could say the same about the more recent folks.

Also, the "continental philosophy" which is happening in cultural studies departments often looks more like materialist indoctrination to me. Bottom line, if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual. Materialism is incapable of producing or dealing with metaphysics.

Is this dude in MENSA or wut?

Science!

Gosh, I hate relativists. Except Einstein.

>le science man

>
>le yuppie men

>le smart man

What's your absolute then?

IQ Testing.

>muh IQ

That's nice and all, but what can he do with it?

Literally anything. Try looking up the definition of IQ sometime.

>literally anything
o rly?

Guess a high IQ doesn't include realizing that "science" used to be called "natural philosophy" because it literally came from philosophy. Empiricism was a philosophy before it became

>muh science

See David Hume, John Locke, Francis Bacon [...] the list goes on. Saying one can understand science without knowing where it came from is like saying that one can understand what a tree is without knowing what roots are.

move here and "participate" in the valley """"""culture"""""" and you'll understand why this idea is so pervasive

>If you understand math or history or aeronautical engineering very well, the most abstract of the things you know are what philosophy is supposed to be teaching.

While being a massive generalization, this is probably close enough to the truth to be useful.

>That isn't something we should be proud of though, most continental philosophy in academia isn't happening in the philosophy department but rather in the cultural studies department.

that's not actual continental philosophy, that's just shitty activism no one will remember in 10 years

Truth isn't necessarily useful to us you STEM autist. God you people are annoying.

>Bottom line, if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual. Materialism is incapable of producing or dealing with metaphysics.
if (you) say so

>postmodernism
>dead
When will this meme end?

It's a tough pill to swallow but the big three German idealists and any philosopher who associates with them are part of a meme circle who didn't study Kant in depth and are to be disposed of.

Sorry but not sorry.

>Some retarded STEMfag weighs in on shit he either isn't interested in, or literally can't understand because he's not smart enough

This really is a trend these days. You see the same shit with the New Atheists. They literally can't stop themselves shitting on philosophy, and they even think they appear smart while doing it.

>If you understand math or history or aeronautical engineering very well, the most abstract of the things you know are what philosophy is supposed to be teaching.
What? Is he talking about presocratics?

> Books on philosophy per se are either highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much
To whomst?

What kind of interview is this

t. Schopenhauer

>Bottom line, if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual.
Fuck off pseud.

No, Graham understands that perfectly well. Try reading his article next time instead of making baseless arguments.

>Dude you just don't understand it. Damn those gosh darned STEMfags!

Okay but what are your arguments?

Saying Hegel is 'vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand' isn't an argument either.

I literally just stated my arguments.

Maybe people who aren't interested in a specific topic, or are too dumb to understand it should stop weighing in on said topic at all.

Refute his points.

He never cared to get into the specifics of what he disagreed on Hegel's philosophy, why should we give him the time of our day?

>Refute his points.

What points? Whining about "vague abstractions" isn't an argument.

Why do people get so mad when someone studies philosophy? It almost seems like there's something hidden in the works of the philosophers that they don't want you to know about...

It seems like one, if you don't know what philosophy is and think that it's just a form of refining the efficiency of fields that aren't philosophy.

There's certainly seems like there's a pathological element here, but I I don't think it's that.

I'm not qualified to psychoanalyze people.

>there's something hidden in the works of the philosophers that they don't want you to know about...
Except there's not, otherwise people would have found it by now.

Dude we live life by psychoanalyzing people, grow some balls

Neither do I, but this constant smear of philosophy without any kind of solid argument or specific points to argue against seems like some deep fear.

It's easier to just read the latest pop science-y clickbait article about evo-psychology. Plus, people know about the limits of natural philosophy since the damn Greeks.

People find it all the time.
We also live life by eating, doing arithmetic, talking...I mean really, dude? Come on. I'd rather be right than wrong about this sort of thing.
IMO it's a political thing, in the past seventy years or so there's been a major fear of philosophy as a pathway to Marxism or fascism. There's fear involved, but it's an institutional fear--fear of those in power of the loss of power, fear of those without power of the need to make decisions in a world where they are thrust into power, fear of being proven wrong (which is the same as fear of the truth), etc.

It's pretty simple. Most people don't know what philosophy actually is and aren't able to understand it - even people who study philosophy and even people who graduated in philosophy. They have a certain understanding of the history of philosophy - that's it.
I don't know if it's like Plato said (paraphrased: "You can't become a philospher, you're a philosopher or you are not a philosopher") or if people just aren't taught well or read the wrong "philosophers" in the wrong order.
Moreover a lot of modern "philosophers" (especially the more prominent ones) did philosophy a disservice and kind of ruined it's reputation by using it to promote their political points of view - they were sophists instead of philosophers. Therefore, laymen actually think this kind of sophistry is philosophy - no wonder it has a bad reputation.
A third problem is the general decrease of philosophical education among scientists. A lot of young physicists don't even recognize they are running into a lot of philosophical problems, they're just ignoring them and are subject to the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you look at guys like Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, they knew what they were doing and had a philosophical understanding of it - now take a look at all these nowadays metaphysicians who actually think they are physicians because they don't have the ability to question their own work anymore.

>now take a look at all these nowadays metaphysicians who actually think they are physicians because they don't have the ability to question their own work anymore.
Of whom do you speak?

It's true, most people don't want you to be capable of thinking logically, which is why the average STEM nerd hates Aristotle so much and the worst kind of Continental faggot who doesn't actually read and just hangs out in European cafes smoking cigarettes while getting drunk off their ass resents analytic philosophy.

>Only the questions that are answerable are meaningful.

He's thinking things that are obvious to him are correct. A nice blissful ignorance there. People that are more philosophical aren't going to assume like that but would rather think about it instead.

Nice trips.

There's an interesting quote by Heisenberg. He was researching the so-called "shower of particles" (Teilchenschauer) which occurs if particles collide at high speeds in his later days, and he was confronted with quark theory at the same time. He said something like: quarks don't solve problems, they only postpone them. (He didn't know you could prove the existence of quarks indirctly. Therefore, he thought, they were just a metaphysical concept - nevertheless, I think this quote is quite noteworthy.)

There's a trend among theoretical physicists to use mathematics as the very device to solve problems - but mathematics aren't physics - they are a kind of metaphysics. If you solve a problem mathematically but are unable to prove the presumed hypothetical entities physically you didn't solve the problem physically. If you solve a problem mathematically but know you will never be able to prove the presumed entities physically (because they fall below or exceed the possible knowledge horizon - being too small, existing in imperceptible dimensions, etc.) you have a nice metaphysical theory, but it's not and will never be a physical theory.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it, it can be quite beautiful - the only thing I don't like about it is the lable "physics": it's dishonest.

>useful
Make yourself useful, goy!

Heidegger already blew this fuck out

Naw, I don't really want to read his article. It's probably just a bunch of vague abstractions. Maybe I'd read it sometime, but more as an accident report than anything.

IMO it's a political thing, in the past seventy years or so there's been a major fear of philosophy as a pathway to Marxism or fascism.

This is an interesting argument, but I'm not too convinced about it, since there seems to be a decent amount of evidence that wittgenstein and the leading logical positivists were involved in spying for the communists.

Plus, Logical Positivism and Scientism both support Materialism, which is fully compatible with Marxism, which is also materialism.

IMO, we should be more worried about scientistic materialism if we're going to avoid communism. Fascism is like its little monster baby. It springs up only in reaction to communism.

He didn't say that, though...

I thought you philosophers were capable of providing coherent arguments instead of resorting to strawmen and ad hominem attacks.

>Le epic science man!

>Le wise philosophy man!

Lisp sucks.

>le 2kewl4school dude

Why is contempt and proud ignorance of philosophy so common nowadays? I see similar statements from Dawkins, Steven Hawking, et al. They're not exactly deep thinkers, but they must reflect some popular mood. I can't imagine Carl Sagan or Arthur C. Clarke saying the same thing.

dawkins can into trolling

he peaked in new atheism. bitches on his dick where my money at went to his head and he talked some reckless shit

he had a sense of humor tho

youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc

I'm sure John Green has a sense of humor as well

Because when it stopped being science it started being outlet for idiots which degraded.

...

>if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual
I genuinely want to know what you think you mean by this

Not the guy you're replying to, but read pic related.

blaah blaah ideas dont come brain it comes from outside world blah blah

I'd love to know where these thoughts and ideas magically come from, if not from the brain.

Philosophers are worse than religitards.

The hair-splitting happens that they don't come just from your consciousness. Or do you adhere to the notion that nothing but your consciousness is real (or it's doubt ala descartes)

In that text he actually proposes that philosophy should concern itself only with phil of science and presents this as some kind of novel, revolutionary idea. He is really just like your average phil student. Too dumb for the subject and therefore gets stuck on one of the captivating figures from history of phil and thus decides hes done with phil forever. The only thing he took away from studying phil is a set of excuses for why he wont concern himself with it again.

Every page of Hegel is so fucking thick and skullfucking I literally have to read it three times to understand it and once more the next day. This book is fucking killing my usually super-fast reading pace!

Analytic philosophy is part of the neoliberal superstructure, the heights of their political theory and ethics all presuppose a western liberal worldview. Intellectual activity itself achieves a division of labour under this ideology - there is no more such a thing as "philosophy" per se, but a bunch of isolated fields whose main job is to reproduce themselves and create somewhat acceptable models of reality. The founders of analytic philosophy were quite transparent that its goals were to mimic some kind of scientific methodology by solving specific "puzzles". Clearly, there is no ambition here, no willingness to consider paradigms which don't fit in the academic canon, because the paradigm is already set in its roots, and any acceptable analytic work must be designed to facilitate it reproduction.

Of course they don't want you to read Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger and anything else in the "continental" tradition, and call it pseudo-philosophy, because reading them might actually imbue you with a historical perspective and a vision beyond neoliberal centrism.

>Every page of Hegel is so fucking thick and skullfucking

Dude, I follow you. I have no idea what lead him to write like that. As fundamentally rich and difficult to grapple with as his ideas are, his writing doesn't even seem to be that way for any particularly good reason; he doesn't have Nietzsche's ability to employ imagery to distinctly clarify what he is saying, so much of it legitimately comes off as pretension or his lack of means to put it in a better way. I'd love for some Hegel master to clarify his shit here and explain why he rambles on like the does.

There's a reason the only parts of Hegel that people still talk about is the chapter on Master-slave dialectic.

He explains it in the preface, iirc. Hegel is completely against any kind imagery being used in philosophy.

>he hasn't mastered hegelian ethics and trains to be Das Man

>since there seems to be a decent amount of evidence that wittgenstein and the leading logical positivists were involved in spying for the communists.
First I've heard of it. I'm referring to Popper and his intellectual descendents, mostly.
>IMO, we should be more worried about scientistic materialism if we're going to avoid communism. Fascism is like its little monster baby. It springs up only in reaction to communism.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, though--why is it that some scientific discourse ought to worry us like this at all?

Silicon Valley culture
>a multitude of people that have no idea what they're doing, who view their company as a kind of accessory, and who will ultimately fail while a few outliers pay the bill.

Silicon Valley culture is nothing special and the party is mostly over until AI and automation run the show.

I'm in the 1% of the 1% in terms of how many hours I've spent listening to SV founders talk.

He became a billionaire with massive influence

So did I, trust me, it doesn't mean anything. It probably did both of us more harm than good.

nice.

>I'm in the 1% of the 1% in terms of how many hours I've spent listening to SV founders talk.

How have you not killed yourself already

>Bottom line, if you think ideas are something that happens in the brain, you're not a philosopher, you're an anti-intellectual
lol, this won't age well.

>The hair-splitting happens that they don't come just from your consciousness
>adhere to the notion that nothing but your consciousness is real
what? how does this make any sense? lots of conflation with meaning, knowledge, representation, etc.. going on here.

>We'll discover the consciousness gene soon, just you wait...

yikes
can't wait until TED talks are their own art form