RE: Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?
February 27, 2022 at 12:56 pm
(This post was last modified: February 27, 2022 at 1:09 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Realist philosophies are as much (or as little) an issue of knowledge as any scientific conclusion, and for all of the same reasons in both cases. Scientific inference is, after all, a particular kind of realist philosophy. I'll return to this down below.
If I recall correctly, there's a chapter about probability in that last book I recommended, probability as cause - the engine of causation as we understand it. Full of caveats about how things at our scale make this less apparent - more in dealing with the metaphysical ramifications of a potentially non-deterministic world on a fundamental level.
Then there's Crosby, another I'd mentioned, who wrote an article that might also be the kind of thing you're looking for, called "Probabilism, Emergentism, and Pluralism: A Natural Metaphysics of Radical Materialism". The first page of which you might find amusing as it seems as though he's speaking specifically to you, in thread. Actually, there's a quote from Crosby I'm trying to dig up that is almost verbatum a thing you mentioned before about matter, either in this thread or elsewhere. While I'm sure you'd disagree with Crosby in a great many instances, it stuck out to me that in speaking about matter - you from your background and he from his, were of the same mind.
He believes that the things modern physicicts say about the world we live in can be sound propositions, and if they are, and if sound propositions in valid inferences can yield a true conclusion (or, if you prefer, a more likely to be true conclusion) - then there would be no more opinion to his ethics or aesthetics than there is already contained within the propositions he's sourced from physicists, anthropologists, biologists, or nueroscientists.
However, as I mentioned previously, if you were looking for hardcore analytic philosophy with contemporary physics as it's focus, you'll find that in journals. Philosophers were never going to let physicists have all the fun with all these new things we've learned. I think it's emblematic of the disconnect that people think that philosophers wouldn't devour the whole product of the premise machines efforts.
If I recall correctly, there's a chapter about probability in that last book I recommended, probability as cause - the engine of causation as we understand it. Full of caveats about how things at our scale make this less apparent - more in dealing with the metaphysical ramifications of a potentially non-deterministic world on a fundamental level.
Then there's Crosby, another I'd mentioned, who wrote an article that might also be the kind of thing you're looking for, called "Probabilism, Emergentism, and Pluralism: A Natural Metaphysics of Radical Materialism". The first page of which you might find amusing as it seems as though he's speaking specifically to you, in thread. Actually, there's a quote from Crosby I'm trying to dig up that is almost verbatum a thing you mentioned before about matter, either in this thread or elsewhere. While I'm sure you'd disagree with Crosby in a great many instances, it stuck out to me that in speaking about matter - you from your background and he from his, were of the same mind.
He believes that the things modern physicicts say about the world we live in can be sound propositions, and if they are, and if sound propositions in valid inferences can yield a true conclusion (or, if you prefer, a more likely to be true conclusion) - then there would be no more opinion to his ethics or aesthetics than there is already contained within the propositions he's sourced from physicists, anthropologists, biologists, or nueroscientists.
However, as I mentioned previously, if you were looking for hardcore analytic philosophy with contemporary physics as it's focus, you'll find that in journals. Philosophers were never going to let physicists have all the fun with all these new things we've learned. I think it's emblematic of the disconnect that people think that philosophers wouldn't devour the whole product of the premise machines efforts.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
