David Brooks and the end of philosophy
ConversazioniPhilosophy and Theory
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1bjza
Making the rounds through philosophy departments everywhere, so... a fitting thread for this group!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?_r=2&emc=eta1
David Brooks declared philosophy is at an end. What do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?_r=2&emc=eta1
David Brooks declared philosophy is at an end. What do you think?
2frances26
There seems some confusion here of ethics, aesthetics, and experience/ reenactment of psychophysiological responses to events. If we could rely on universal distaste for antisocial acts the development of moral and legal codes could indeed be unnecessary yet the revelation - or negotiation and legislation - of these codes has been the focus of a great deal of human energy, not to mention the effort that goes into the observation of the former or enforcement of the latter.
If subjective judgements cannot be learnt, reinforced, and built on through experience, and we cannot choose what elements of experience we would wish to recreate, we lose much of our humanity. We also lose the ability to think about and negotiate any concepts or issues more complex than our own biochemistry - security and privacy in telecommunication, ethics in biotechnology and genetic engineering, diplomacy and military intervention in international relations. And our choices in how we bring up our children.
I for one will be reading more of Janna Thompson and Peter Singer e.g. How are we to live so I don't think philosophy is dead quite yet.
If subjective judgements cannot be learnt, reinforced, and built on through experience, and we cannot choose what elements of experience we would wish to recreate, we lose much of our humanity. We also lose the ability to think about and negotiate any concepts or issues more complex than our own biochemistry - security and privacy in telecommunication, ethics in biotechnology and genetic engineering, diplomacy and military intervention in international relations. And our choices in how we bring up our children.
I for one will be reading more of Janna Thompson and Peter Singer e.g. How are we to live so I don't think philosophy is dead quite yet.
3Mr_Wormwood
That article is very much off the mark..
ITs basic premise is that evolutionary psychology dictates that human emotions determine human moral judgements, so there is no place for 'the examined life' as Socrates conceived of it. Even if this position is true (which i doubt) what does that matter in terms of the 'philosophical life'. the philosophical life, as conceived of by Socrates, was never about acting in conformity to the assumptions and predilections of the human crowd, just the opposite, it is about questioning and evaluating those predilections and assumptions. So rather than saying 'every one feels moral values so there is no place for moral reasoning', Socrates would have said, on the contrary, that is precisely WHY we need moral reasoning, to subject those intuitive feelings to critical analysis
ITs basic premise is that evolutionary psychology dictates that human emotions determine human moral judgements, so there is no place for 'the examined life' as Socrates conceived of it. Even if this position is true (which i doubt) what does that matter in terms of the 'philosophical life'. the philosophical life, as conceived of by Socrates, was never about acting in conformity to the assumptions and predilections of the human crowd, just the opposite, it is about questioning and evaluating those predilections and assumptions. So rather than saying 'every one feels moral values so there is no place for moral reasoning', Socrates would have said, on the contrary, that is precisely WHY we need moral reasoning, to subject those intuitive feelings to critical analysis
4NoLongerAtEase
Philosophy is a subject that journalists simply cannot write about.
Part of the reason for this is that its subject matter is ultimately too hard for the uninitiated to grasp, much less condense into a newspaper column. I don't mean this in some terribly condescending, elitist way either. Many of them *could* grasp the major issues in philosophy after an arduous course of study. But unlike, say, baseball, few journalists have ever been sufficiently exposed to philosophy.
The same would be (and to some extent still is) true of science journalism except that typically, the folks that write news articles on science (a.) have a scientific background of some kind and (b.) see fit to quote and consult the experts.
Perhaps if those that wrote *about* philosophy knew the subject they'd have more interesting and intelligent things to say.
Part of the reason for this is that its subject matter is ultimately too hard for the uninitiated to grasp, much less condense into a newspaper column. I don't mean this in some terribly condescending, elitist way either. Many of them *could* grasp the major issues in philosophy after an arduous course of study. But unlike, say, baseball, few journalists have ever been sufficiently exposed to philosophy.
The same would be (and to some extent still is) true of science journalism except that typically, the folks that write news articles on science (a.) have a scientific background of some kind and (b.) see fit to quote and consult the experts.
Perhaps if those that wrote *about* philosophy knew the subject they'd have more interesting and intelligent things to say.
