The End of Philosophy

In the event that you haven't seen it, there is an interesting NYT op-ed by David Brooks entitled "The End of Philosophy." Perhaps he should have simply called it the "The Beginning of Experimental Philosophy" :)

Comments

[Josh May]

Wow, what a sensational title Brooks chose. I think that's a bit harsh to the discipline! He mostly just talks about the rise in the view that emotions play a big part in the formation of moral beliefs. It's unclear why he thinks that entails the end of philosophy. It's unclear why anyone would think that. Is he just trying to refer to rationalism by using the word "philosophy"? (Even then I think it's a bit quick to conclude that rationalism is dead---in ethics or otherwise.)

[Mark]

Yeah, sensational title is right. That article betrays the extent of Brooks's knowledge about what philosophers actually do.

Disappointing!

[cvr]

"Wow, what a sensational title Brooks chose."

While Brooks may well have enough clout at the NYT to write his own headlines, it's much more common in newspaper journalism for headlines to be written by editors rather than writers. Are you sure Brooks is an exception to this rule? (I know Thomas Friedman, does, so again, you may be correct).

[Josh May]

True, the editor may have chosen the title. However, I'd still hold Brooks partly responsible for it. He shouldn't have let them do that. If they demanded it and wouldn't change it no matter what Brooks said (which I doubt), he could have at least retracted the essay or something. That kind of title is quite misleading and insensitive to a discipline that is respectable yet suffering from a severe public image problem. He's just throwing fuel on the already billowing fire (or at least allowing it to be thrown in his name).

[Clayton Littlejohn]

"The rise and now dominance of this emotional approach to morality is an epochal change ... It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning."

I think he was drunk when he wrote this.

Maybe the editors should have titled the piece, "Why David Brooks badly needs some philosophy classes"?

[Ron C. de Weijze]

When immediate emotions start dictating our morals immediately, all is lost that our left brains have come up with. We must test our intuitions and realize whether they were right or wrong, not simply accepting them. I can imagine that when values are hailed, say in a political craze, arguments are no longer necessary, and criticism (growth of knowledge) even less. Those who disagree should study what started happening in Germany in the mid 1930s.

[Juanma]

In my opinion it becomes even dangerous to accept ideas that are not based on experience. As Bertrand Russell said: "when ideas are based on reason you will try to defend them by talking but when they are based on what we call "faith" you will find that dialogue doesn't work and so you will try to force your arguments by prosecution or distorting child's minds whit what we call "education"..."

It's not an idea coming from nowadays. Wittgenstein was the first philosopher who suggested to extract metaphysical arguments when reasoning and it sounds quite logical. If we cannot reach an agreement on deciding if we are souls our shadows in a cave or anything, so it makes no sense that we try to base our dialogue in those ideas.

[murongqingcao]

It is a pity to see philosophers and celebrities of this world are lack of knowledge about what philosophy is all about. The effort of trying to manage philosophy as a science has a long history in America, but it is a mistake. The real problem is that most American philosophers seem not aware that this is wrong.

[Felipe De Brigard]

Mr. Muronggingcao: that is an interesting observation, but I see not argument whatsoever in support of it. What do you think philosophy is all about, then? And why do you think it so far apart from science?

[murongqingcao]

Mr Felipe De Brigard: thanks for the feedback on my comment. In fact, the fundamental difference between Philosophy and Science was first perceived by ancient Greek scholars: Philosophy is about wisdom and Science is about knowing things. To most people including most nowadays philosophers, the meaning of wisdom is about knowing things and the one who knows better is the one who is smarter. This might be a common sense we could learn from daily life, but it is not precisely true. Being smart in general does not necessarily demand clarity of details, but knowing things especially knowing how to do things generally demands clarity, which is the fundamental difference between philosophy and science. This subtle difference which might have confused most people in fact is the reason for philosophy to stay as philosophy and science to stay as science no matter how many people or how many elite philosophers would like to turn philosophy into science. I have more discussion on this and related issues in my blog: http://www.thoughts.com/murongqingcao/blog