Most intellectual writers

[mona amon]

I would contend that modern science and "geek culture" may very well be changing what we mean by or think of as "intellectual." There was a time when the highest pursuit one could direct their minds to was philosophy, but that's no longer true. A great many thoughts and questions that philosophers devoted their time to have either been answered by modern science, or have revealed flaws in the thoughts/questions themselves and the minds that thought them. Yes, science grew out of philosophy, but they've definitely grown into two distinct disciplines that can suffer to varying degrees without the other. However, I'd argue philosophy suffers far more by not taking into account modern science than the reverse. As this article argues, modern philosophy spends too much of its time batting around the obsolete concepts from demonstrably ignorant old dead guys. Sure, it's still an intellectual pursuit, but it's a diseased one. That a great many scientists and engineers don't know art and philosophy doesn't, I would argue, make their pursuits any less intellectual, unless one wants to define intellectualism to be associated exclusively with philosophy and art, and I don't think it should be.

I think there's definitely a distinction between 'The Intellectual' and the 'Scientific Enquirer' (Geek or whatever it is called), and it's really the same distinction between the exact sciences and the humanities. The only branch of philosophy where the exact sciences have had an enormous impact is Metaphysics. For all other branches (Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics etc) we still depend more on intellectual wisdom rather than fail-safe scientific methods. Of course we have things like Statistics, Psychology etc to help us now, but these also can hardly be called exact sciences.

[MorpheusSandman]

Morph, isn't Epistemology a study of knowledge? If it is, isn't philosophy, as a whole, knowledge?

Yeah, epistemology is the study of knowledge, or of how we know. Philosophy, as a whole, most certainly isn't knowledge; most of it is fanwanking on ideas where the wankers don't know how to get from their wanking to a genuine state of knowledge, so the wanking turns into an infinite circle jerk, until people like Quine, Yudkowsky, Wittgenstein, Peirce, et al. come along and point out what the problem is.

The only branch of philosophy where the exact sciences have had an enormous impact is Metaphysics. For all other branches (Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics etc) we still depend more on intellectual wisdom rather than fail-safe scientific methods.

The key phrases in these two sentences are "enormous impact" and "WE still depend;" what I would argue is that science has had AN impact on every branch of philosophy, but some (perhaps most) philosophers tend to ignore that impact and continue to focus on "intellectual (I'd say intuitive) wisdom" rather than "hard sciences." But if you check out that link I provided with Lukeprog recommending alternative philosophical studies, most of his examples are modern philosophical disciplines based on scientific advances. To quote him:

more Bayesian rationality, heuristics and biases, & debiasing, less informal "critical thinking skills";
more mathematical logic & theory of computation, less term logic;
more probability theory & Bayesian scientific method, less pre-1980 philosophy of science;
more psychology of concepts & machine learning, less conceptual analysis;
more formal epistemology & computational epistemology, less pre-1980 epistemology;
more physics & cosmology, less pre-1980 metaphysics;
more psychology of choice, less philosophy of free will;
more moral psychology, decision theory, and game theory, less intuitionist moral philosophy;
more cognitive psychology & cognitive neuroscience, less pre-1980 philosophy of mind;
more linguistics & psycholinguistics, less pre-1980 philosophy of language;
more neuroaesthetics, less aesthetics;
more causal models & psychology of causal perception, less pre-1980 theories of causation.

On the left/more side you have the modern philosophical branches that have grown out of scientific advances and can/should be replacing the right/less side of antiquated philosophical studies they're related to.

[JCamilo]

As for Philosophy, it exists within itself for the most part - a distinction from the old continent and the British Isles in Western thought. The British tradition is far more applicable, whereas continental philosophy has been more thought-contained. That being said, the actual study of philosophy exists for its own sake, and is not supposed to be applied toward practical things. Does it have value? Well, you can debate that all you want, I personally do not understand Western philosophy enough to pass judgment.

Those attacks on the vallue of philosophy are mind bowling. Be Art, science, religion, there is philosophy behind giving the the support for the production of knowledge and understanding of paradigms. Heck, Law, which is probally the most powerful discipline in the world, is a continual application of philosophy. Undermine it and you have all kind of corrupt legal systems. Undermine it and Academy is just busines and... done. And People wonder why there is a world crisis on education, literacy, art, etc...

[miyako73]

"Yeah, epistemology is the study of knowledge, or of how we know. Philosophy, as a whole, most certainly isn't knowledge; most of it is fanwanking on ideas where the wankers don't know how to get from their wanking to a genuine state of knowledge, so the wanking turns into an infinite circle jerk, until people like Quine, Yudkowsky, Wittgenstein, Peirce, et al. come along and point out what the problem is."

Now, I appreciate that. There's truth to it. In fairness, philosophical mathematics handled by mathematicians and logicians with strong backgrounds in mathematical foundations is not interpretive and wanking to me.

Being 'whole', philosophy is a discipline that links its branches. Philologists include logic in their study of language. Logicians study truths in their application of the subject to morality. Moral philosophy touches religion and hermeneutics. Hermeneutics includes Epistemology in its reading and interpretation. Epistemology deals with knowledge that includes many subjects related to being, existing, essence, reality, etc. that are metaphysical in nature. Then from Metaphysics to Political Philosophy when the topic is about the rights and freedoms of man. When Marxism and Capitalism arise, the subject becomes political economy/philosophy of economics that will evolve into Social Philosophy that touches family, culture, aesthetics, science, technology, medicine, etc until it reaches back again to the basics of Philosophy. There is a circular interchange of knowledge. Philosophy after all is a study of human wisdom-- not the definition I like. Now try it on yourself. Can you compartmentalize your wisdom/knowledge and make them uniquely separate from each other? I can't. My knowledge of justice is connected to everything in the society. My idea of love involves all pleasures including the painful ones. And my idea of a human being is whole- I cannot even separate human anatomy from human culture.

Now let me breathe.

[MorpheusSandman]

In fairness, philosophical mathematics handled by mathematicians and logicians with strong backgrounds in mathematical foundations is not interpretive and wanking to me.

Yes, I would say that disciplines like mathematical logic are on the cutting edge of both science AND philosophy, which is where all science and philosophy should ideally be, but most aren't. As I said earlier, I think philosophy suffers far more by being out of touch with modern science than the reverse. Scientists didn't really NEED philosophy to model quantum physics, but they need philosophy to INTERPRET quantum physics (and a bad understanding of philosophy by scientists are why so many interpretations still exist when there is a clear favorite); but, as a whole, interpreting quantum physics is less useful than modeling it.

Being 'whole', philosophy is a discipline that links its branches.... There is a circular interchange of knowledge... Can you compartmentalize your wisdom/knowledge and make them uniquely separate from each other? I can't.

I agree that, again, ideally, philosophy SHOULD try to link its branches; but I would say the same of science, medicine, even the arts. What one learns in one branch can certainly affect how they think about another one. So many of my inspirations for poetry come from music and film and painting rather than other poetry. However, there is the issue that as knowledge grows it becomes much more difficult to study every branch in-depth, so the issue of breadth VS depth crops up. If you generalize, you can gain a broad but superficial understanding; if you specialize, you can gain a deep but narrow understanding. Our modern world favors depth over breadth, probably because we have such a huge population we have enough room for specialists in every sub-branch of every field. This may be why we see less classic intellectuals today, in general, because most people are encouraged to specialize in order to fill certain positions. Of course, there's also the issue that, even if you do study broadly, it's not always clear HOW these branches should link together and affect each other, and we have to be careful not to create arbitrary links as well.

[JBI]

Perhaps by definition, but you must make a distinction - after all "science" is an outcrop of "natural philosophy" in the west. The East Asian cosmology and scientific inquiry into things (格致）is also linked to philosophy. Entwined of course is the notion that such inquiries themselves were carried out by mostly theologians and clerics for the majority of Western culture.

In East Asia the intellectual was primarily a philosopher, and all science stemmed from this tradition. The inquiry into technology was mostly an offshoot of the inquiry into the philosophical world as understood as a great pattern.

[JBI]

Those attacks on the vallue of philosophy are mind bowling. Be Art, science, religion, there is philosophy behind giving the the support for the production of knowledge and understanding of paradigms. Heck, Law, which is probally the most powerful discipline in the world, is a continual application of philosophy. Undermine it and you have all kind of corrupt legal systems. Undermine it and Academy is just busines and... done. And People wonder why there is a world crisis on education, literacy, art, etc...

I'm not attacking, but there are a few things I know I don't understand in this world, and Kant is one of them.

[mona amon]

The key phrases in these two sentences are "enormous impact" and "WE still depend;" what I would argue is that science has had AN impact on every branch of philosophy, but some (perhaps most) philosophers tend to ignore that impact and continue to focus on "intellectual (I'd say intuitive) wisdom" rather than "hard sciences." But if you check out that link I provided with Lukeprog recommending alternative philosophical studies, most of his examples are modern philosophical disciplines based on scientific advances. To quote him: On the left/more side you have the modern philosophical branches that have grown out of scientific advances and can/should be replacing the right/less side of antiquated philosophical studies they're related to.

I was scared off from the article you linked by terms like 'Bayesian scientific method' and 'psycholinguistics' but anyway, I certainly wasn't denying that philosophical thought keeps advancing and growing! If Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" (dictionary definition), then of course it has to change with every new addition to our understanding of these concepts.

Be Art, science, religion, there is philosophy behind giving the the support for the production of knowledge and understanding of paradigms. Heck, Law, which is probally the most powerful discipline in the world, is a continual application of philosophy. Undermine it and you have all kind of corrupt legal systems. Undermine it and Academy is just busines and... done. And People wonder why there is a world crisis on education, literacy, art, etc...

[mal4mac]

Yes, I would say that disciplines like mathematical logic are on the cutting edge of both science AND philosophy, which is where all science and philosophy should ideally be, but most aren't. As I said earlier, I think philosophy suffers far more by being out of touch with modern science than the reverse. Scientists didn't really NEED philosophy to model quantum physics, but they need philosophy to INTERPRET quantum physics (and a bad understanding of philosophy by scientists are why so many interpretations still exist when there is a clear favorite); but, as a whole, interpreting quantum physics is less useful than modeling it.

Why do they need philosophy to interpret quantum physics? They need to know the difference in meaning between "one interpretation" and "one valid model". But, surely, this doesn't need philosophy, just an understanding of English.

I just borrowed Brian Greene's "The Hidden Reality" from the library and he says, "I don't expect theoretical or experimental consensus to come in my lifetime concerning which version of reality - a single universe, a multiverse, something else entirely - quantum mechanics embodies" (p.237)

Your continual backing of "many worlds", above all other interpretations, is an indication that you are "arguing from emotion", not an example of you being a better philosopher than those physicists who don't use the many worlds interpretation. You "like" the many worlds interpretation so you argue yourself into thinking it's the only possible solution. This combines misleading sentimentality with an overwrought desire for "one true answer, now!". Real physicists, who are also real intellectuals, like Brian Greene, are more subtle and come to better conclusions about the real state of play.

However, there is the issue that as knowledge grows it becomes much more difficult to study every branch in-depth, so the issue of breadth VS depth crops up. If you generalize, you can gain a broad but superficial understanding; if you specialize, you can gain a deep but narrow understanding. Our modern world favors depth over breadth, probably because we have such a huge population we have enough room for specialists in every sub-branch of every field. This may be why we see less classic intellectuals today, in general, because most people are encouraged to specialize in order to fill certain positions. Of course, there's also the issue that, even if you do study broadly, it's not always clear HOW these branches should link together and affect each other, and we have to be careful not to create arbitrary links as well.

The leading public intellectuals, today, seem to grow out of a specialised field that just happens to have implications of great importance to everyone in their everyday lives. So Dawkins, an expert on Darwinism, comes along just as the God debate assumes great importance (again!) and feels forced to defend his field by writing a book ("The God Delusion") that attacks a construct ("God") that is of great importance in current discourse (due to political & social developments like the Tea party, and Al Quida.)

The same could be said for Tim Berners Lee, who developed the technical basis for the Web, and now comments on its social implications. To be a public intellectual doesn't require a broad knowledge of everything, I doubt Dawkins knows much about the visual arts, or music, or web security, for instance. What it requires is specialised knowledge about one aspect of one area of current public discourse, and enough knowledge of other aspects important to the discourse so that one doesn't appear foolish (like Dawkins had enough knowledge, or quickly gained enough knowledge, of the invalidity of bad old philosophical arguments, so that tricksy theologians couldn't blind side him.)

[Frostball]

Mal4mac, I agree with almost everything you say, particularly the bit about many worlds, while being possible, shouldn't be accepted over other models because we simply don't know yet, and should therefore withhold judgement.

Just one thing that really grates on my nerves is how you say Dawkins is an expert on Darwinism.. There really is no such thing as darwinism anymore. I think you mean to say that Dawkins is an expert on evolution. Darwinism is an outdated term, and is really only used by creationists in the modern day, who want to equivocate things like social darwinism, "survival of the fittest", and the presumption that people hold darwin as some kind of great prophet to be put on a pedestal, all rolled up in one term "darwinism". The term darwinism is never used by scientists to refer to evolution, and indeed, the theory of evolution contains much more than Darwin ever knew or conjectured, even though he did have the original brilliant ideas of natural selection and common descent.

[mal4mac]

Just one thing that really grates on my nerves is how you say Dawkins is an expert on Darwinism.. There really is no such thing as Darwinism anymore.

That's just plain wrong, the term is still in common use, it's in my Concise OED. It doesn't grate on my nerves at all. I think Wikipedia has it right, at least about the British side of things: "In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection."

Dawkins himself uses the term often, for example:

"I suppose that by that time the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing... it was a very positive feeling - Darwinism is a very beautiful, very positive explanation and the world suddenly starts looking a lot more exciting."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...ienceandnature

I think it's a useful rhetorical tactic to use the term Darwinism, rather than evolution. The personal approach affects people, that's why novels are so attractive, and why Christians harp on about Christ all the time.

Don't let the slurs of creationists damage the use of the term "Darwinism"! If they use it in a negative way to imply "Social Darwinism", or some other nasty thing, pull them up about it, and remind them of the actual meaning of the term.

Darwin is one of the greatest scientists of all time, why not put him on a pedestal? We also use the terms Newtonian physics, and Maxwell's equations. Science is such an abstract field that I think it's a useful reminder that someone actually developed these principles and laws.

[JBI]

It's strange though, it only highlights the "theoretical" nature which gives too much room for religious skeptics. Generally if they used Evolution, the same way we use "The Laws of Gravity" etc. we wouldn't run into the "it's just a theory" camp. Granted, the term is trying to give credit to the originator, but we do not call the theory of relativity "Einsteinism" which says something. Of course, different fields - we still use Newton's name a lot, but we quite easily could just forgo such names.

[mona amon]

It's strange though, it only highlights the "theoretical" nature which gives too much room for religious skeptics. Generally if they used Evolution, the same way we use "The Laws of Gravity" etc. we wouldn't run into the "it's just a theory" camp.

That is a really interesting observation. We were taught about Evolution in our convent school, and accepted it as a truth just like the concept of Gravity, so it always seems so strange to me that there are people who do not believe in evolution. As for the Bible, well, there are many things there that even believers take with a grain of salt.

[Frostball]

Woah! You think that's "Completely wrong"? I find it funny that you quote wikipedia and say that you think it has it right--at least about the british side of things. I'm pretty sure it's right on both sides of it, that is, in the US it really IS a loaded term that carries baggage. You have a point that this isn't the case in the UK, but I really don't see why you need me to be "completely wrong" such that you'll accept the part of the wikipedia quote that agrees with you and not the part that agrees with me.

I don't need you to be "completely wrong", I see your point, and I think it's a valid one. I live in the US, so I hear darwinism being used virtually exclusively in a disparaging way. Not only that, the term evolution is simply more accurate, and much more widely used. One would never say "we evolved from a prehistoric shrew-like mammal through a process called Darwinism". You would call that process evolution. The theory of common descent by natural selection is called Evolution, not Darwinism.

I almost even agree with the fact that you might call it "Darwinian Evolution" in a similar manner as "Newtonian Physics". I think it's quite unnecessary as there simply isn't another game in town as far as evolution goes. While there are disagreements on specifics such as the one between punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism, this is all subsumed under the heading of evolution, so there is no need to specify the fact that it's Darwinian. But this is a pretty minor quibble, I admit that just because there is no need to do so, doesn't mean that you can't, so you may have a point.

Edit: Just want to point out that I noticed your wording was actually "just plain wrong" and not "completely wrong". I'm silly for such a mistake, and I feel I should admit it.

[JCamilo]

I'm not attacking, but there are a few things I know I don't understand in this world, and Kant is one of them.

Not you, as you haven't attacked at all.

Anyways, you seem to not have engaged enough on those debates. Evolution is just a theory is a quite commun reply. Darwinist usually go to Darwin was proved wrong line or argument. I think, in the end, if the name used was anything, "Masturbation" even, the arguments, Masturbation is just a theory would exist. You may consider those debates a textual style with their own tradition.