> While I refuse to learn philosophy

What?? You want to inquire into meaning and purpose and you ignore the discipline of inquiry into meaning and purpose? That is absurd.

If you can ignore for a moment the archaic sexism of terminology, there’s a reason why mathematics is called “the queen of the sciences” — the king, or Ursprung of them all, including mathematics, is philosophy.

today in "Hacker News commenters unable to identify jokes." it's okay though, I'm used to that by now

No, she's right. The field of philosophy has failed to separate out its bullshit, so anyone who decides to "learn philosophy" without a lot of prior independently-generated philosophical sophistication will be lead into a trap. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FwiPfF8Woe5JrzqEu/philosophy...

As someone who studied philosophy (among other things) I think that view is a little bit simplistic. Philosophy has given up the idea of the one universal truth out there that you just have to figure out for a reason. A lot of what surrounds us is a matter of perspective to such an degree that trying to figure out one objective (and maybe on top logically sound) truth behind everything is not just ridiculous, but potentially outright dangerous.

I'd be the last person to argue that there is a lot of trash in philosophy. Hermetic stuff that revolves around itself and simulates complexity of thought through choice of words. There are definitely many pearls as well.

90% of everything is trash, that's true nearly everywhere.

That article is clearly not saying that you shouldn't read philosophy at all. It's arguing that there is a lot of crap philosophy, but there's plenty of articles arguing there's a lot of crap physics, psychology, and economics. That doesn't mean we should do that research.

Edit: Actually, rereading this article, the author is clearly saying basically the opposite. The author is saying philosophy is useful if it is critical.

"""Unfortunately, many important problems are fundamentally philosophical problems. Philosophy itself is unavoidable. How can we proceed?"""

How can you point to this article as proof that we shouldn't be studying philosophy when the article says it is unaviodable?

No, she's wrong. The modern scientific models each form a kernel of truth from among the BS, and today we have to deal with quantum mechanics and its quirky bizarre predictions which invalidate the "just look at it" and "just think about it" schools of philosophical thought.

For example, she claims that God exists. A typical trait of God is knowing everything about the universe; say, knowing the positions, momenta, and spin of every particle. But QM gives us Heisenberg's Uncertainty, which prevents anybody, including hypothetical deities, from knowing that information. Indeed, QM typically isn't materialistic; it is wrong to insist that all of those particles definitely have some position and momentum at an instant in time. So, whatever her God is, it isn't the all-powerful one. (The all-powerful God has many better-tread problems in pure metaphysics, like the Problem of Evil, but I don't know what "evil" is and so I'm leaning on QM.)

There is no problem in having to learn philosophy by reading surveys of historical ideologies. Philosophy is cumulative, and as little as one semester of studying historical philosophy can massively improve a person's critical thinking skills.

Really, the problem is in not taking seriously enough the invalidation of old philosophies by newer thoughts, as we continue to improve what we know. There are many positions that are simply wrong, including positions which we currently think are correct!

you might do well to learn what attributes classical theism claims of a deity before slandering them; any deity bound by the natural laws of the world is hardly in keeping with the claims of theistic traditions of all stripes , excluding some late 20th century evangelical protestants.

and the problem of evil is only significant to lay people; in the study of the philosophy of religion it has been considered a rather weak objection for some time now.

The wavefunction isn't ontic. This means that, even if God can see the whole universe, they can't actually know the real values associated with each particle; they can only have an epistemic, partial view. You might do well to study some quantum mechanics!

supernatural means above the natural order; your conception of a deity is out of step with traditional theism and represents straw man building at best

No amount of natural evidence (that is, empirical evidence) can ratify a supernatural belief. Following Popper, then, the burden of evidence is on you to overcome quantum mechanics.

We're both deists, by the way. I follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the FSM is absurd, which means that I cannot use the FSM's existence to conclude facts, and additionally doesn't affect the material universe. Also, the FSM doesn't maintain cults, encourage child abuse, start wars, nor allow simony.

Your "traditional theism" is metaphysically and epistemically weak; it cannot say anything about the world other than that its deity exists and has material affect upon the universe. However, empirically, there is no evidence of the deity (because they are supernatural), and so the deity cannot have any scientific method associated with it. Simply put, there's no room in the natural world for a supernatural being! Every empirical effect is instead considered scientifically.

The only gap left would be for you to show that miracles or other supernatural phenomena are real. On that, I have nothing polite to say, just to wish you good luck on what will definitely fail.

we were on the subject of your straw man burning; Which you seem to have already fessed up to ... something which speaks to some redeemable qualities.

Let's not pretend that naturalism rests not on metaphysical assumptions.

I've not confessed to or recanted anything, silly; I merely have outlined my position more clearly so that you don't have any ridiculous dodges like "that's what an atheist would say."

I don't have a straw man. I have any deity which is like Jehovah, with Jehovah himself as a special case. Any deity is subject to self-defeating arguments and open to criticism from science.

I am not a naturalist, but that's the closest position that you can imagine, I guess.

Anyway, if you don't actually want to talk about QM, then we'll just have to talk about how Jehovah's followers keep trying to do something about COVID-19, but all of their appeals have led to nothing. Meanwhile, science and technology give us models for understanding, combating, and preventing the pandemic. Are you really going to pledge yourself to your deity and cough your lungs out?

Broskie, take it from an agnostic/natural theist, who actually ended up going down the Philosophy of Religion rabbit hole. Throwaway is right. You've lost before you even got started. The arguments you brought up have been well trod, and very influential pieces of theistic philosophy built around them.

Science can only posit the how. Not the who or the why. Throwing quantum mechanics at the problem doesn't solve anything either, because ultimately you at some point at the end of a nigh infinite chain of why are left with the question "Why something rather than Nothing?"

The answer is either silence, or God, the recognized nominative signpost of the answer , even by the Wittgensteinian approach.

Your COVID-19 related rantings commit the fallacy of assuming the nature of God, or committing the anthropocentric fallacy of thinking God even gives a rat's arse about us, or that there is enough of a working understanding of prayer to count on it in a technological way. It's not a terribly uncommon itis for the modern theistic skeptic, but does demonstrate a horrendous lack of effort in having grounded one's skepticism through actual effort to confront and dismantle the theistic construct at it's core, or to understand it's place in human society.

Religion has no beef with science, nor the other way around.

All you're showing is that you don't know much of quantum mechanics either. Should you choose to change that, MIT has published a nice lecture series on quantum physics [0], the first in a group of three.

Your bold claim "why something rather than nothing?" assumes that there is, in fact, a something to refer to, and QM directly challenges the simplicity of that assumption. So many words to fight against the lack of an ontic wavefunction!

[0] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP60cspQn3N9d...

this claim is contested , and some would even say disproven; why do you keep bringing it up like a life raft.

Show your work. Prove for us that the wavefunction of the universe is ontic.

Again, strawmen and worse. Theism hardly excludes science or technology. 3 children down you attempt to change the subject again. You have already admitted that you could only argue against deism. I don't expect everyone to come to the light (Strong links between autism & atheism); I do expect a higher level of commentary on HN ...

The Internet makes it easy to see who is winning at life and who isn't. It also guides you on where you should compete. If someone else is winning at a particular topic that interests you; then you can decide to either join them or out-compete them with better results.

This article addresses The Great Man Theory[0] or what I call supernaut syndrome[1] which has affected the masses terribly. Every person has to be all they can be now, and their full potential actualized, otherwise there is no point.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

Of late I've noticed an emerging trend on YouTube of popular creators presenting more visible vulnerability and engaging with reflection alongside their fans, rather than hiding it. And live streaming culture often encourages such as well, since the long, unstructured time spans naturally create those moments.

This practice rather counteracts the belief in the supernaut, since it humbles and demonstrates a kind of solidarity with everyone who isn't "making it". It doesn't exactly counter the negatives of parasociality in these spaces, but it opens the window for the audience to reconsider.

I find the connection between the increased connectivity afforded by the Internet and the widespread miasma of supernaut syndrome quite astute. To my knowledge, I haven't seen much serious discussion of this.

In other words, it probably isn't healthy that we are regularly subjected to what is marketed as the best/brightest/most-anything in whatever category we're looking for information on. There's nothing wrong with this, except for the fact that continued exposure to it can change our view on the type of work that _we_ need to be doing to make our way through the world. It might be an overreach, but it smells a lot like the mind virus of so-called incels: "I'm not remarkable, so why do I have worth?"

Escaping that requires an enormous amount of energy.

The truth is pretty much tautological: "you have worth because you exist."

I can’t find the passage at the moment, but in his book Notes on Culture, T. S. Eliot actually argues that this is endemic to a societal system which is run by meritocratic, technocratic elites. That is, by those who excel at the required skills necessary to ‘climb the ladder’ and not by a broad cultural class which maintains power, I.e. a hierarchical aristocracy in the British form. His argument is something like: when you get the entire populace concerned with acquiring power, they will inevitably be dissatisfied with their current societal position.

Not sure I agree with him entirely, but it’s an interesting position.

It may not be exactly for the reasons she gives, but I think her instinct is correct to reduce these metaphysical questions into minutiae. To “unanswer” them by forcing them to conform to her empirical observation without any additional inquiry, because that inquiry quite frankly is a waste of time (the important caveat being unless you’re making the inquiry for its own sake and therefore enjoying it).

It’s a deeply pragmatic approach.

It reminds me of the Buddhist parable about the poison arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow

"‘Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first.’ Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.”

Arete is one of my favorites.

Picked up by way of Mage: the Ascension, where you are a reality bending mage & your general mastery over reality is called "arete". Your efficacy at magic, your excellence... silly intro but got me introduced to the idea & a host of other good ones that still shape my perception of the world.

That game world also has a "trimurti" which closely parallels the Hindu triumvirate, which is another good perspective I've been glad to carry. Creating/sustaining/destroying, crudely said.

The article searches for meaning and finds God. Whoops! It was a good try, though.

Let's use the opportunity to be productive, though. Meanings must live in their own realm apart from sentences, so that when we say that a sentence has a meaning, we imply that there is a mapping from sentences to meanings. However, those meanings cannot be complete and consistent; there must be some sentences which don't have permanently-mapped meanings, because such meanings would lead to self-contradiction [1].

The author should read more Meaningness, especially the section on the fallacies of eternalism [0]. They could also read Derrida on meanings and deconstruction, although Derrida's not easy reading.

Edit: As usual, downvoters, want to reply?

[0] https://meaningness.com/eternalism

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theo...

I literally linked to Meaningness in the post lmao

Understandable, and yet, you did not read. The page I linked says, openly,

> Dropping religious beliefs is only a first step towards freeing ourselves from eternalism.

And continues to explain how your beliefs, about how there are definite meanings and purposes to life, are illusions. The next page [0] states it clearly too:

> We cling to the idea that there must be a cosmic plan because we fear that without one everything would be meaningless. But this is mistaken; which means that most ideas about meaningfulness and meaninglessness are mistaken. Fortunately, life is meaningful without any cosmic plan or ultimate source of meaning.

If you like arete, you could also stand to read Pirsig. He was very concerned with ethics and values.

Finally, to directly critique your metaphysics, please first consider this phrase you wrote:

> Everything matters, because we feel everything, and thus it matters to us.

And then consider Russell's teapot [1]. Does Russell's teapot matter, floating out there around the rings of Saturn? Can we feel it? A bit of consideration will show that, while everything is connected to everything, not everything affects everything else equally. We are, in fact, far more sensitive to things which are close to us.

[0] https://meaningness.com/no-cosmic-plan

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

It's really inconceivable to you that I simply disagree, huh?

It's quite conceivable. I believe my eyes; I read your words. But you have no evidence from which to justify your disagreement. If you genuinely are simply airing your opinion, and don't care about whether it convinces anybody else, then please don't post it to HN, since it is an actively anti-intellectual position.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion. They're not entitled to immunity from critique, nor are they entitled to have their opinion be true nor provable.