Robert,
Ah, Yes, Marx. That paragon of concise argument!
As you know, I take metaphors VERY seriously. So, let's run with yours a bit.
You aren't claiming, are you, that philosophy is not a social activity? Ok,
then, the proper metaphor to express your contempt for philosophy, would be sex
with birth control, rather than masturbation, right? So, now, what the metaphor
says is that, while philosophy produces ONLY a social product, mathematics,
etc., produces a social product AND accumulating knowledge [knowledge =
babies].
to be honest, I have found the conversations of the last few weeks
discouraging. And given the fact that I have used up so much bandwith myself, I
can't help feeling that the failure to move forward is largely my fault. But I
don't see the alternative. How can we NOT try to get clear on what we are
saying to one another? How can we not struggle to understand how one another
understands the words we are using? Or shall we just go on talking without
understanding one another. Oh boy: THAT sounds like fun.
To bend your metaphor a bit: given that we are going to continue sleeping
together, shouldnt we at least TRY to produce a marriage of minds????
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Holmes
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 7/9/2009 11:06:56 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was going to say something rude, but then I discovered that Marx had beaten
me to it:
"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one
another as onanism and sexual love" (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The German
Ideology, I, III, 1, 6, C, 1845-6)
Like onanism, philosophy passes the time, makes one feel good and shouldn't be
done in public. Also, it doesn't actually create anything. Hence nothing to
build on. A 20th century onanist looks much like a 4th century BC onanist.
-- Robert
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick, Glen, Russ, Eric, and many of us who have participated in the recent
spate of philosophical conversations .. I'd like to ask a question:
Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work
in the same way mathematics does?
In trying to answer this, I looked briefly into the philosopher recommended by
Timothy Gowers in his VSI to Mathematics. In Gowers' wrestling with the
abstract (or possibly purely pragmatic) approach to mathematics, he was
profoundly affected by Wittgenstein. I'm enjoying the VSI to Wittgenstein, and
am impressed by his analytic approach.
Frank, in the past, has mentioned that modern philosophy might be becoming more
formal, turning to a more mathematical approach (apparently flourishing at
CMU). Some call it Analytic Philosophy, which includes Wittgenstein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
So the question to the philosophic amongst us: what is the answer to the above
question? Is there a way in which philosophy can build on past work in the same
way mathematics does? Is there an epsilon/delta breakthrough just waiting to
happen in that domain? Will there be a "Modern Algebra" unification within
philosophy, finding the common ground amongst widely different concepts like
symmetry groups, fields, rings, Hilbert spaces and the like?
-- Owen
============================================================
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
------=_NextPart_2440311102796613219605
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.13" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2>Robert, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2>As you know, I take metaphors VERY
seriously. So, let's run with yours a bit. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2>You aren't claiming, are you, that
philosophy is not a social activity? Ok, then, the proper metaphor to express
your contempt for philosophy, would be sex with birth control, rather than
masturbation, right? So, now, what the metaphor says is that, while philosophy
produces ONLY a social product, whereas mathematics, etc., produces a social
product AND accumulating knowledge [knowledge = babies]. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2>to be honest, I have found the
conversations of the last few weeks discouraging. And given the fact that I
have used up so much bandwith myself, I can't help feeling that the failure to
move forward is largely my fault. But I don't see the alternative. How can
we NOT try to get clear on what we are saying to one another? How can we not
struggle to understand how one another understands the words we are using?
Or shall we just go on talking without understanding one another. Oh boy:
THAT sounds like fun. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2>I suppose we could "just" go on sleeping
together, without trying to produce a marriage of minds. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2>Nick </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Book Antiqua" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Nicholas S. Thompson</DIV>
<DIV>Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, </DIV>
<DIV>Clark University (<A
href="file:\\\C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nthompson\Local%20Settings\Temp/mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</A>)</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="file:\\\C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nthompson\Local%20Settings\Temp/http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/";>http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><B>From:</B> <A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]";>Robert Holmes</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To: </B><A [email protected]
href="mailto:[email protected]";>The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> 7/9/2009 11:06:56 PM </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [FRIAM] Analytic philosophy -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=2>I was going to say something rude, but then I
discovered that Marx had beaten me to it:
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=webkit-indent-blockquote style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none;
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM:
0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0px;
BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">"<SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="LINE-HEIGHT:
24px">Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to
one another as onanism and sexual love"<FONT class=Apple-style-span
face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: small"> (</SPAN></FONT><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE:
small">Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, </SPAN></FONT><FONT class=Apple-style-span
face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: small">The German Ideology</SPAN></FONT><FONT
class=Apple-style-span face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: small">, </SPAN></FONT><A
href="file:\\\C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nthompson\Local%20Settings\Temp/http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03e.htm";><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"><FONT
class=Apple-style-span face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: small">I, III, 1, 6,
C</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></A><FONT class=Apple-style-span face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: small">,
1845-6)</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Like onanism, philosophy passes the time, makes one feel good and
shouldn't be done in public. Also, it doesn't actually <I>create</I> anything.
Hence nothing to build on. A 20th century onanist looks much like a 4th century
BC onanist.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>-- Robert</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Owen Densmore <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="file:\\\C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nthompson\Local%20Settings\Temp/mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</A>></SPAN>
wrote:
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px
0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Nick, Glen, Russ, Eric, and many of us who
have participated in the recent spate of philosophical conversations .. I'd
like to ask a question:<BR><BR> Why is it that philosophy does not build
on prior work<BR> in the same way mathematics does?<BR><BR>In trying to
answer this, I looked briefly into the philosopher recommended by Timothy
Gowers in his VSI to Mathematics. In Gowers' wrestling with the abstract (or
possibly purely pragmatic) approach to mathematics, he was profoundly affected
by Wittgenstein. I'm enjoying the VSI to Wittgenstein, and am impressed by his
analytic approach.<BR><BR>Frank, in the past, has mentioned that modern
philosophy might be becoming more formal, turning to a more mathematical
approach (apparently flourishing at CMU). Some call it Analytic Philosophy,
which includes Wittgenstein.<BR> <A
href="file:\\\C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nthompson\Local%20Settings\Temp/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy";
target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy</A><BR><BR>So
the question to the philosophic amongst us: what is the answer to the above
question? Is there a way in which philosophy can build on past work in the
same way mathematics does? Is there an epsilon/delta breakthrough just waiting
to happen in that domain? Will there be a "Modern Algebra" unification within
philosophy, finding the common ground amongst widely different concepts like
symmetry groups, fields, rings, Hilbert spaces and the like?<BR><BR> --
Owen<BR><BR><BR><BR>============================================================<BR>FRIAM
Applied Complexity Group listserv<BR>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St.
John's College<BR>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <A
href="http://www.friam.org";
target=_blank>http://www.friam.org</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_2440311102796613219605--
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Holmes
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 7/9/2009 11:06:56 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Analytic philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was going to say something rude, but then I discovered that Marx had beaten
me to it:
"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one
another as onanism and sexual love" (Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The German
Ideology, I, III, 1, 6, C, 1845-6)
Like onanism, philosophy passes the time, makes one feel good and shouldn't be
done in public. Also, it doesn't actually create anything. Hence nothing to
build on. A 20th century onanist looks much like a 4th century BC onanist.
-- Robert
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]> wrote:
Nick, Glen, Russ, Eric, and many of us who have participated in the recent
spate of philosophical conversations .. I'd like to ask a question:
Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work
in the same way mathematics does?
In trying to answer this, I looked briefly into the philosopher recommended by
Timothy Gowers in his VSI to Mathematics. In Gowers' wrestling with the
abstract (or possibly purely pragmatic) approach to mathematics, he was
profoundly affected by Wittgenstein. I'm enjoying the VSI to Wittgenstein, and
am impressed by his analytic approach.
Frank, in the past, has mentioned that modern philosophy might be becoming more
formal, turning to a more mathematical approach (apparently flourishing at
CMU). Some call it Analytic Philosophy, which includes Wittgenstein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
So the question to the philosophic amongst us: what is the answer to the above
question? Is there a way in which philosophy can build on past work in the
same way mathematics does? Is there an epsilon/delta breakthrough just waiting
to happen in that domain? Will there be a "Modern Algebra" unification within
philosophy, finding the common ground amongst widely different concepts like
symmetry groups, fields, rings, Hilbert spaces and the like?
-- Owen
============================================================
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============================================================
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
