- My eBooks
- Ed Radio
More info
About
About Stephen Downes
About Stephen's Web
About OLDaily
Subscribe to Newsletters
gRSShopper
Threads Discussions
Privacy and Security Policy
Subscribe
Web - Today's OLDaily
Web - This Week's OLWeekly
Email - Subscribe
RSS - Individual Posts
RSS - Combined version
JSON - OLDaily
Viewer
Social Network
Stephen's Web and OLDaily
Half an Hour Blog
Google Plus Page
Twitter Feed
Flickr Photos
Huffington Post Blog
Slideshare
Blip TV
Professional
National Research Council Canada
Research Topics, Research Wiki, Code
Publications
Presentations
All My Articles
Contact
Email: stephen@downes.ca
Email: Stephen.Downes@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Skype: Downes
Philosophy Only A Philosopher Could Love?
Jonathan Livengood,
Metafilter, January 2, 2012.
Jonathan Livengood calls this "philosophy only a philosopher could love," and while I don't actually stand as a counterexample, I think there might be wider love for Clark Glymour's manifesto than the author suggests. His point of view, in a nutshell, is that for all the criticisms logical positivists receive, they contributed much of value to society, including not only computational logic and artificial intelligence, but a better and more moral view of the world than, say, Heidegger, Sartre and Merleau-Ponty. I have said many times that "my morality is based on my science; my science isn't based on my morality." Though Hume famously said you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" I take it as foundational to ethics that you can't simply argue your way out of what is a transparently flawed morality. You have to account for the facts, and if your morality leaves half the world starving, or unleashes death and destruction on an entire nation, or sanctions and accommodates fascism and tyranny, then your morality has somewhere gone off the rails. Society is a network, and behaviours that wreck networks are immoral. I think the logical positivists understood that, and while their overt stance was the preservation of a "distinction that made a difference" their underlying objective was to rid the word of the vapid equivocations and rationalizations of unethical systems with which we are all so familiar today. Clark Glymour is one of my philosophical influences; read more of his work today. See also the John Stuart Mill quote from the bottom of this article by Michael Ruse. (Hits Today: 2 Total: 635)
[Direct Link] [Tags: Networks]
Comments
Re: Philosophy Only A Philosopher Could Love?
Thanks for bringing my attention to what looks to me like an interesting strand in the philosophic web. But judging by the reaction to Glymour's polemic"manifesto" I would guess that Livengood's title is intended to be ironic. [Comment]
[Permalink]
[Previous][Next]
Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here
you agree to license under the same terms as this site
(CC By-NC-SA). If your comment is offensive it will
be deleted.
Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered
user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot
post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited
and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.
