53
54

Why is Alan Watts considered "Bad Philosophy"? (self.askphilosophy)

DaZimZam が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]DaZimZam[S] -51ポイント-50ポイント  (89子コメント)

What is philosophy of not vague, wish washy statements? "Cogito ergo sum", "God is dead". Entirely wishy washy.

[–]drunkentunephil. of science, epistemology, nonfoundationalism 54ポイント55ポイント  (53子コメント)

If you strip away the hundreds of pages with dense argumentation surrounding these statements--i.e. literally everything else--I suppose they will appear wishy washy.

[–]LiterallyAnscombehistory of ideas, philosophical biography 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you strip away all the particular statements and evidence of biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy and ask for a general statement "of science" you'll also end up with nothing but extremely vague wish-washy statements.

[–]nosewings 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

What is science if not vague, wish washy statements? "Survival of the fittest", "big bang".

[–]DaZimZam[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Survival of the fittest isn't wishy washy. Big Bang was made for pop purposes.

[–]nosewings 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Survival of the fittest isn't wishy washy.

If you say so.

Big Bang was made for pop purposes.

It was intended as an insult.

But I could go on. "Nature abhors a vacuum", "God does not play at dice".

[–]Chickenfrend 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

DaZimZam is an absolute moron, but you're being unfair too. "God does not play dice" is just something Einstein said cause he disliked quantum mechanics, not actual science.

[–]Aberu 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

But that's the point. DaZimZam took "God is dead" and called it wishy washy, obviously not putting the phrase into the greater context and attempting to understand it, just hand waving it ignorantly. Nosewings was imitating that behavior.

[–]nosewings 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

not actual science.

But it was actual science. The slogans and the personal motivations -- those are all legitimate parts of science. They may not fit into the scientific method, but they are real and important.

In any case, I have nothing inherently against any of the phrases I gave. Actually, I dislike "survival of the fittest" more than the rest, since I think it gives the wrong impression.

[–]Shitgenstein 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

The whole point of cogito ergo sum is that it's literally the least wishy-washy statement a person can make. I don't think you really understand what those words me to call it that.

[–]bunker_man 5ポイント6ポイント  (20子コメント)

Well, for instance, pointing out that people are continuous with their environment can have a very specific meaning. For instance, panpsychists think mind is everywhere, and so might think that what we call individuals are just spikes in activity, rather than individual generated things. Or thing monists at least believe that in a metaphysical sense, there is only one item with different parts. He could have been clear about making one of these statements. But he didn't clearly say anything. Most things he says he phrases as "ways of looking at things" rather than any kind of content. And without making a clear statement it comes off like he just likes making metaphors.

[–]the_matriarchy 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

Cogito Ergo Sum is not vague or wishy-washy. It's an incredibly precise and concise statement.

I think you should acquaint yourself with more philosophy before you make such a sweeping dismissal. You might be interested in learning more formal analytic philosophy - read some David Lewis or David Chalmers or Peter Singer before you conclude that it's all 'vague and wishy-washy'; much philosophy is closer to mathematics than to literature.

[–]Peisithanatos -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

That "much philosophy" that is closer to mathematics is merely one part of all philosophy, and the analytic style didn't exist as we know it until late in the history of philosophy. Why conclude MUCH philosophy is closer to mathematics than literature just because your education is analytic? That's a tendency I don't like in analytic philosophy.

EDIT: Also, someone's philosophy being close to literature wouldn't make it necessarily wishy washy, as you seemed to imply. Even Post-Kehre Heidegger is very precise in his choice of words, if you care to try and read him carefully. It's simply a different philosophical style.

[–]the_matriarchy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Much != most. I didn't mean to imply that.

I also don't think all non-analytic philosophy is vague and wishy-washy, I just thought analytic was a solid counterexample to his proposition.