Glen,
Sorry if I have been obtuse. It's partly because I can be obtuse and partly because my means of communication here at the farm are so primitive that errors are easy to make and easy to get out of control.
I had just about decided that I shouldn't participate much in FRIAM discussions over the summer, and then, suddenly, there was Owen, declaring that philosophy was dead because it was not empirical. It seemed that what he meant by philosophy was lofty conversations by people who knew nothing about what they were talking about. Well, of course, THAT sort of activity always HAS been dead. But you don't get to be a philosopher by donning a tunic and sandals and talking vaguely concerning matters about which you are ignorant. Really you don’t! And I don’t care if you are on TED, when you are doing it.
I fear that the passage you cite might give comfort for that view. Examining virtue sounds a lot like talking vaguely about something none of us knows anything about. But if one looks at how Plato/Socrates examines virtue it is by exploring the logical relation between statements, including statements of principle and statements of principle, and statements of principle and statements of fact. And -- as I have said ad nauseam -- this has the FEEL of mathematics to me. (cf Timothy Gowers).
Philosophers may get the reputation for talking about matters they know nothing of just because their expertise is in the relations amongst propositions, not in the content of the propositions, themselves. Thus, philosophers can contribute to discussions in which they are ignorant of the factual basis for the discussion: it does not follow however – and this is a typical philosophical observation – that all discussions of subjects by ignorant people constitute philosophy, even discussions about the nature of the good. As to your plumber, if he were reflecting on the nature of plumbing pipe nets, he would be being a mathematician, if he were reflecting on the idea of waste and what it implies, he would be being a philosopher, and if he were telling you how to get your waste into your septic tank, he would be being, well, a plumber.
I am forwarding this on to some philosophers I know so they can dopeslap me. I will pass along anything interesting they might say.
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Philosophy vs. science
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 07/11/2011 05:58 PM:
> But before I say why -- again -- could you tell me how (if?) you think
> mathematics is different from science.
Don't bother saying it again. I read, understood, and agree with what you've posted. Similarly, I've already posted what I think philosophy is and how it's different from math. But perhaps you didn't see it due to the mailing list problems. So, here it is again:
Philosophy is to math as it is to any other discipline. Introspective mathematicians will sporadically engage in philosophy in order to sort and arrange the fundamental concepts of their discipline ... just like a chair maker will engage in philosophy to sort out the fundamental issues of chair making.
Philosophy is _obvious_ when discussing he fundamentals of any discipline. The paper I asked people like Owen and Doug to comment on:
http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/Preprints/MG-LESz-rp_preprint-v5.pdf
seems to be doing that. It's clearly a philosophy paper trying to deal with some fundamental physical principles. There are plenty of similar, philosophical, papers dealing with the foundations of math. As with any discipline, the closer to the center you get, the more philosophy you see. It's true that some mathematicians, perhaps even most, spend their whole lives wandering around the outer layers, never considering the fundamentals. But many of us, from musician to ditch digger, agree with Socrates/Plato that:
"Perhaps someone might say: But Socrates, if you leave us you will not be able to live quietly, without talking? Now this is the most difficult point on which to convince some of you. If I say that it is impossible for me to keep quiet because that means disobeying the god, you will not believe me and will think I am being ironical. On the other hand, if I say that it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for man, you will believe me even less."
That's why I prefer plumbers who have a philosophy of plumbing over the lazy yahoo who just wants to get paid and go home to watch American Idol or play XBox. ;-)
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
============================================================
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
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |