i think i have a couple of them on my FL

[lauralh]

In college I dated a guy who was majoring in biology and philosophy. I'm kind of anti-philosophy because of him - not because we didn't get along, but because it all just seemed like so much mental masturbation to me. But then I was majoring in computer science. I sort of wish I had taken a couple of intro courses now, or maybe at least read a book like "philosophy for dummies" so I'd know who said what and all that. Of course I sort of know all that anyway, just because, hey, I'm literate and shit. You read a little, you find that out. And the internet is an indispensible font of knowledge.

Last year I bought a copy of Being and Nothingness, but I didn't even get past the introduction. Well, that wasn't written by Sartre, either. Perhaps at one point I'll pick it up again, but really I prefer reading stuff that has actual real-world applications. Which doesn't explain how I got all the way through The Fountainhead... but like all other philosophical schools, Objectivism has some good stuff and some bad stuff. Personally I'm more interested in the historical significance (since that's real-world application) of ideas, rather than the ideas themselves. (My favoritest course ever was a "history of science" class.)

Although that only goes for humanistic fields; when I was taking calculus, for example, I wasn't crazy about applying formula to explain actual phenomena. And then there was my preference for pure logic proofs versus geometric proofs. Same principles for both, but the latter were applied and the former were abstractions. I totally got off on them both, but I definitely preferred the former. But my preferences are obsolete in this day and age, someone who enjoys applying her mind to repetitive tasks. I don't like doing stuff over and over, I just like running my thought processes over and over, only slightly differing each time. (I'm also the one who figures out tips at restaurants.) Which is I suppose why I'm never going to be mistaken for a success in the field of computer science. I'm just not good at seeing the real-world applications in the left-brain shit.

Comments

[thepublicguy.livejournal.com]

Most of it is rubbish. The trick is to explain clearly why it is rubbish.

Sartre is a terrible place to start for someone with your interests. He's also a terrible place to end up at and a terrible place to go through the middle of but that's another story.

If you liked history of science the best place to start would be philosophy of science. Try reading about Karl Popper and falsificationism. Then you might look at the connection between Popper's views about the way science should be conducted and the way he thoughts politics should be organised - so as to create open societies where one political paradigm could challenge another.

Another bit you might or might not get into is the philosophy of logic rather than just the use of pure logic as a tool. For instance, the issue of what's wrong with classical symbolic logic.

Or maybe of more interest, if there's anything left in computer science that interests you, is the philosophy of artificial intelligence but I don't really know anything about that.

The trouble with philosophy - what makes it hard to concentrate on - is its abstraction. If you like abstraction you should find some of it easy, though not the bits that are obscure and pretentious which is quite a lot.

I wouldn't start with philosophy of mind, or theory of knowledge or metaphysics. I don't think "Can we know that the external world really exists?" is the sort of philosophy that would really do it for you. This is where most intro to philosophy courses and books start.

There are some that start with ethics, which supposedly has real-world implications, but you might soon find it's not as simple as that.

Incidentally, there are a lot of graduate programs that treat history and philosophy of science as a single subject. And a lot of the greatest cientists, Einstein for one, have been quite influenced in their work by philosophy of science.

My favourite quote of the moment from a philosopher - I'm told it's from a guy called Quine - is this.

"To be is to be the value of a variable."

I think I prefer it to the Shakespeare.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

Sartre is a terrible place to start for someone with your interests. He's also a terrible place to end up at and a terrible place to go through the middle of but that's another story.

Heh. Well, I like what I know of Existentialism, so I figured I'd look into it. Also I've read his autobiography in the original French (well, some of it) and enjoyed it. I think really I enjoy more reading biographies of philosophers than their actual philosophy, but that's a different story.

If you liked history of science the best place to start would be philosophy of science. Try reading about Karl Popper and falsificationism. Then you might look at the connection between Popper's views about the way science should be conducted and the way he thoughts politics should be organised - so as to create open societies where one political paradigm could challenge another.

Hm, I've read Kuhn and wasn't impressed, but I've heard a few good things about Popper.

Or maybe of more interest, if there's anything left in computer science that interests you, is the philosophy of artificial intelligence but I don't really know anything about that.

AI is actually the one bit of comp. science that interests me both on the abstract and the applied level. I could totally see myself doing serious research and grad work on that, but um, well, it's too hard. I took a class one term and did ok, but it was a bit over my head. I attempted to do an independent research project with these robots the next term and failed miserably, but that's another story. And really the philosophy of it isn't as interesting as the theory and practice.

The trouble with philosophy - what makes it hard to concentrate on - is its abstraction. If you like abstraction you should find some of it easy, though not the bits that are obscure and pretentious which is quite a lot.

That's what I've found. I'm crazy about abstraction if it makes sense. Most of my philosophy background, actually, comes from anti-religious screeds...

I wouldn't start with philosophy of mind, or theory of knowledge or metaphysics. I don't think "Can we know that the external world really exists?" is the sort of philosophy that would really do it for you. This is where most intro to philosophy courses and books start.

Yeah. I've pretty much accepted the fact that the external world exists, or at the least, I'm acting like it does.

There are some that start with ethics, which supposedly has real-world implications, but you might soon find it's not as simple as that.

The study of ethics doesn't really interest me because it seems self-evident to start from The Golden Rule and just go from there. Not all that complicated.

Incidentally, there are a lot of graduate programs that treat history and philosophy of science as a single subject. And a lot of the greatest cientists, Einstein for one, have been quite influenced in their work by philosophy of science.

Interesting. (Of course merely studying these things has no real-world application, either. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm all for expanding the mind for the sake of it, but I also want to make a living. I mean I do have to LIVE in this world.)