From: zeb haradon (zebharadon@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 23 2000 - 13:41:02 MST
>From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: <extropians@extropy.org>
>Subject: Philosophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it
>Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:23:13 -0800
>
>From: "zeb haradon" <zebharadon@hotmail.com>
> > Thesius's ship should be preserved, since it is a peice of Greek
> > history. They keep it docked, but it starts to decay. Every time a peice
>of
> > wood decays even a bit, it is replaced with a freh board. Eventually,
>every
> > board has been replaced. Is it still Thesius's ship? If no, at what
>point
> > was it no longer that ship? When did it lose it's "Thesius's ship"-ness?
>
>It is still Thesius' ship. If you want to know how, observe the workers
>replacing the decayed boards with fresh boards. If you want to know when
>and
>where, pay attention to these details. If you want to know whose ship it
>is,
>find Thesius' descendents and heirs. If you want to know why, you're a
>philosopher, and Thesius probably wouldn't want you on the ship.
>
> > Furthermore, a scrap dealer stumbles upon all the semi-rotting wood
>which
> > has been removed from Thesius's ship. He takes it, and, since it's not
> > completely rotten, he actually assembles a ship from it, he has
>re-assmbled
> > Thesius's original ship. He docks it next to the first ship. Which one
>is
> > really Thesius's ship?
>
>If you were paying attention to the how, and where, and when, and whose
>relating to Thesius' ship, then you'd know that Thesius (or his
>preservationist descendents, if he's dead) still has his reconstructed
>ship,
>and that the scrap dealer has the rotten original ship. No mystery there.
>
>None of this requires philosophy. It just needs observation, direct
>experience to verify facts, and empirical evidence to ascertain correct
>identities.
>
> > Someone came to give a philosophy talk at the college I went to and
>argued
> > that they both are, and that this teaches us something about objects and
> > space. His hypothesis was that this proves that an object can be in two
> > places at the same time. Amazing! Thesius's ship was in two places at
>the
> > same time, docked right next to eachother.
>
>That helps to explain why some people call it "fool-osophy."
>
> > The reason this peice of philosophy is valuable is because it takes
>"common
> > sense" hidden assumptions about the nature of objects and applies it to
>a
> > problem, which leads to a nonsensical result and shows that the common
>sense
> > assumptions about objects, the premises by which most people think about
> > objects, are false. If you're a good philosopher, you're going to figure
>out
> > why these wrong questions are the wrong questions.
>
>Nice try, but no kewpie doll. This piece of sh... excuse me, this piece of
>philosophy is worthless because it pretends to offer solutions, but
>(un)common sense reveals more valuable information. The advantage of
>(un)common sense (sense is really not that common) is that it doesn't lead
>to nonsensical results. When you come to your senses (stop philosophizing),
>things look much more clear. If you're a good philosopher, you'll keep
>asking the wrong questions to insure that you don't run out of work.
>
>To me, science is the most uncommon kind of sense. Especially 21st century
>science, because it requires the greatest precision and accuracy in
>empirical experiments that humans have ever attempted. I mean, super
>colliders and space telescopes are fairly uncommon. You need hardware to do
>science.
>
>This reminds me of an Edelman story. Apparently the science department was
>in trouble because it had such a huge expense account. The math department
>bragged that it only needed chalk, paper, and a few waste paper baskets.
>But
>the philosophy department did even better. They didn't even need waste
>baskets. Get it? The philosophers didn't throw out their wrong questions.
>
>Stay hungry,
>
>--J. R.
>3M TA3
>
>=====================
>Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, vitalism, mind, free will
>
I think my sarcastic tone in some of the above may have been lost in the
text. My overall point: this "philosopher" giving this talk was an idiot. He
was an idiot because he took common sense premises (which are always poorly
defined) and came up with ridiculous conclusions. Conclusions which he
believed to be true. What you can get out of this, even this peice of bad
philosophy, is to see the consequences of these premises and to come up with
better premises.
---------------------------------------------------
Zeb Haradon (zebharadon@hotmail.com)
My personal webpage:
http://www.inconnect.com/~zharadon/ubunix
A movie I'm directing:
http://www.elevatormovie.com
"Fish fuck in it." - W. C. Fields answer to why he never drank water.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:32 MST