Login  Register

Re: Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted by Nick Thompson on Jul 11, 2009; 1:51am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Analytic-philosophy-Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-tp3235494p3241661.html

Owen, etal.

I really like this resolution.  

Philosophers as Mathematical Scouts.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/




> [Original Message]
> From: Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Date: 7/10/2009 5:07:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia

>
> Not contempt.  I'm puzzled.  Hence the question:
>          Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work
>          in the same way mathematics does?
>
> The answer Glen gave is quite satisfying: they're not expected to,  
> they're on the frontier figuring out the right questions to be  
> addressing.  Math is the cleanup squad.
>
> This makes philosophy much easier to understand: just wait until they  
> tickle your fancy, then apply formalism to make it last.  Philosophy  
> is not constructive.  I think I knew that but hadn't put it into words.
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> > Glen,
> >
> > What you have written below is beautifully said.  I often feel that  
> > Owen's
> > contempt for philosophy arises from bulldozing everything he finds
> > contemptible into a pile and calling it philosophy.  I know so many
> > mathematicians who dip back into philosophy from time to time to  
> > agree with
> > the proposition that nothing that not been formalized is worth talking
> > about.
> >
> > But I do think that you and I and others may have contributed to his
> > contempt by failing to articulate where we have made progress and, in
> > particular, where the arguments of one of us has improved or  
> > corrected the
> > argument of the other.  Or perhaps, even, to reveal problems that we  
> > have
> > uncovered that we now find insoluble.  It would be interesting to  
> > make a
> > list of points of agreement between us on the subject of emergence.
> >
> > Owen is correct that Wittgenstein would not necessarily be our ally  
> > in such
> > a project, since he seems to have come to regard philosophy as  
> > nothing more
> > than a tool for its own destruction.  .
> >
> > His aphorism, "That of which we cannot speak [clearly?] we should  
> > pass over
> > in silence" cuts so many ways.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
> > Clark University ([hidden email])
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org