rationalskepticism.org

Tracer Tong wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

jamest wrote:Yeah, let's not bother with philosophy

As I've repeatedly stated in the past, if by 'philosophy' one means assertionist navel gazing, then we don't need to bother with that.

I'm interested in what philosophy you think amounts to this. Do you have any books or articles in mind that are particularly good examples?

Ah, so you think there's no philosophy that amounts to 'assertionist navel gazing'. You see, it's easier than rolling off a fucking log simply to challenge the statement that came before yours.

The question "Is philosophy worth bothering with?" does, in some clear sense, call for a response in terms of listing some philosophy that someone considers worth bothering with, which project is not as easy as rolling off a fucking log.

Immanuel Kant wrote a short essay back in the day, which hundreds of thousands of humanities undergraduates have been implored by their tutors to read and respond to in some way. In it, Kant writes, "Sapere aude!" With the rise of the internet, we get the full range of what people do when they think they know something, many of them with a fine degree in philosophy under their belts or wherever they keep it. Thommo cited a recent example taking place right here at RatSkep, but didn't have to look long and hard.

It was like hearing the dude in the cave, wondering what was outside, and trying to work it out just by thinking about it.