Comments on: What Are Philosophers Good For? http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: sgxdikxr http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7481 sgxdikxr Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:02:55 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7481 <strong>zvajqbzfy...</strong> rovlgocayy ixtmduqmc xflwggcnfsw zalkxkruns ... zvajqbzfy…

rovlgocayy ixtmduqmc xflwggcnfsw zalkxkruns …

]]> By: Luka Yovetich http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7480 Luka Yovetich Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:02:41 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7480 Thanks, Will. I'll take a look at that. Not sure that I understand why you think that figuring out the meaning of important moral vocabulary like 'justice' is pointless. I can see why one would think that that is not all there is to figuring out all we want to know about justice. But it seems like a pretty fantastic start to me. I'll read that paper though. Thanks again for the pointer. Thanks, Will. I’ll take a look at that. Not sure that I understand why you think that figuring out the meaning of important moral vocabulary like ‘justice’ is pointless. I can see why one would think that that is not all there is to figuring out all we want to know about justice. But it seems like a pretty fantastic start to me.

I’ll read that paper though. Thanks again for the pointer.

]]> By: Luka Yovetich http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7485 Luka Yovetich Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:02:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7485 Thanks, Will. I'll take a look at that. Not sure that I understand why you think that figuring out the meaning of important moral vocabulary like 'justice' is pointless. I can see why one would think that that is not all there is to figuring out all we want to know about justice. But it seems like a pretty fantastic start to me. I'll read that paper though. Thanks again for the pointer. Thanks, Will. I’ll take a look at that. Not sure that I understand why you think that figuring out the meaning of important moral vocabulary like ‘justice’ is pointless. I can see why one would think that that is not all there is to figuring out all we want to know about justice. But it seems like a pretty fantastic start to me.

I’ll read that paper though. Thanks again for the pointer.

]]> By: Robert Schwartz http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7479 Robert Schwartz Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:40:44 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7479 What Are Philosophers Good For? <a href="http://www.lyricsdownload.com/edwin-starr-war-lyrics.html" rel="nofollow">Absolutely Nothing!</a> That was way too easy. What Are Philosophers Good For?

Absolutely Nothing!

That was way too easy.

]]> By: Robert Schwartz http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7484 Robert Schwartz Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:40:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7484 What Are Philosophers Good For? <a href="http://www.lyricsdownload.com/edwin-starr-war-lyrics.html" rel="nofollow">Absolutely Nothing!</a> That was way too easy. What Are Philosophers Good For?

Absolutely Nothing!

That was way too easy.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7478 Will Wilkinson Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:27:58 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7478 Luka, I definitely think that philosophers are better at conceptual analysis than most folk. The problem is, I think, that a good analysis of what the "linguistic community" means by most terms gets you almost nowhere. For instance, an analysis of the basic meaning of "justice" is going to tell you that it has something to do with people getting what they have coming to them. But it is not going to tell you much else. Beyond that, you've got to try to persuade people that there is some benefit in seeing it your way--that you have a conception that fleshes out the basic concept in a way that meshes with the way we have reason to want to think and live. The pure "I've examined my concept and this is what I came up with" method is pretty much useles. Check out, for instance, Bishop and Trout's paper on the <a href="http://www.niu.edu/phil/~bishop/The%20Pathologies%20of%20SAE.pdf" rel="nofollow">Pathologies of Standard Analytic Epistemology</a> for a good critique of the pointlessness of just ruminating on the meaning of "justification" or what have you. Luka, I definitely think that philosophers are better at conceptual analysis than most folk. The problem is, I think, that a good analysis of what the “linguistic community” means by most terms gets you almost nowhere. For instance, an analysis of the basic meaning of “justice” is going to tell you that it has something to do with people getting what they have coming to them. But it is not going to tell you much else. Beyond that, you’ve got to try to persuade people that there is some benefit in seeing it your way–that you have a conception that fleshes out the basic concept in a way that meshes with the way we have reason to want to think and live. The pure “I’ve examined my concept and this is what I came up with” method is pretty much useles.

Check out, for instance, Bishop and Trout’s paper on the Pathologies of Standard Analytic Epistemology for a good critique of the pointlessness of just ruminating on the meaning of “justification” or what have you.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7483 Will Wilkinson Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:27:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7483 Luka, I definitely think that philosophers are better at conceptual analysis than most folk. The problem is, I think, that a good analysis of what the "linguistic community" means by most terms gets you almost nowhere. For instance, an analysis of the basic meaning of "justice" is going to tell you that it has something to do with people getting what they have coming to them. But it is not going to tell you much else. Beyond that, you've got to try to persuade people that there is some benefit in seeing it your way--that you have a conception that fleshes out the basic concept in a way that meshes with the way we have reason to want to think and live. The pure "I've examined my concept and this is what I came up with" method is pretty much useles. Check out, for instance, Bishop and Trout's paper on the <a href="http://www.niu.edu/phil/~bishop/The%20Pathologies%20of%20SAE.pdf" rel="nofollow">Pathologies of Standard Analytic Epistemology</a> for a good critique of the pointlessness of just ruminating on the meaning of "justification" or what have you. Luka, I definitely think that philosophers are better at conceptual analysis than most folk. The problem is, I think, that a good analysis of what the “linguistic community” means by most terms gets you almost nowhere. For instance, an analysis of the basic meaning of “justice” is going to tell you that it has something to do with people getting what they have coming to them. But it is not going to tell you much else. Beyond that, you’ve got to try to persuade people that there is some benefit in seeing it your way–that you have a conception that fleshes out the basic concept in a way that meshes with the way we have reason to want to think and live. The pure “I’ve examined my concept and this is what I came up with” method is pretty much useles.

Check out, for instance, Bishop and Trout’s paper on the Pathologies of Standard Analytic Epistemology for a good critique of the pointlessness of just ruminating on the meaning of “justification” or what have you.

]]> By: Luka Yovetich http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7477 Luka Yovetich Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:46:04 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7477 Will, Do you think that philosophers have ANYTHING reliable to say about the meanings of words? I mean, I'm of the opinion, as I hope and think that many are, that the meanings of words are determined by something like the usage and intentions of the linguistic community in general. So nobody's intuitiions should count for TOO much more than anyone else's, I guess. But assuming that philosophers are compentent speakers of their native languages (safe assumption) and assuming that they are better trained to examine their concepts, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that they are going to be at least a bit more reliable than the average person in figuring out things about the meanings of words. (I'm ignoring the problems that philosophers encounter concerning their intuitions going all wacky due to explicit theories they have swallowed...) Clearly, I think, the best way to figure out what a word means includes doing more than just polling some philosophers...Since philosophers don't make up even a significant portion of their linguistic communities. But what a philosopher thinks is the meaning of a word seems like it should count for something, right? Will,

Do you think that philosophers have ANYTHING reliable to say about the meanings of words? I mean, I’m of the opinion, as I hope and think that many are, that the meanings of words are determined by something like the usage and intentions of the linguistic community in general. So nobody’s intuitiions should count for TOO much more than anyone else’s, I guess. But assuming that philosophers are compentent speakers of their native languages (safe assumption) and assuming that they are better trained to examine their concepts, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that they are going to be at least a bit more reliable than the average person in figuring out things about the meanings of words. (I’m ignoring the problems that philosophers encounter concerning their intuitions going all wacky due to explicit theories they have swallowed…)

Clearly, I think, the best way to figure out what a word means includes doing more than just polling some philosophers…Since philosophers don’t make up even a significant portion of their linguistic communities. But what a philosopher thinks is the meaning of a word seems like it should count for something, right?

]]> By: Luka Yovetich http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7482 Luka Yovetich Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:46:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/02/04/what-are-philosophers-good-for-2/#comment-7482 Will, Do you think that philosophers have ANYTHING reliable to say about the meanings of words? I mean, I'm of the opinion, as I hope and think that many are, that the meanings of words are determined by something like the usage and intentions of the linguistic community in general. So nobody's intuitiions should count for TOO much more than anyone else's, I guess. But assuming that philosophers are compentent speakers of their native languages (safe assumption) and assuming that they are better trained to examine their concepts, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that they are going to be at least a bit more reliable than the average person in figuring out things about the meanings of words. (I'm ignoring the problems that philosophers encounter concerning their intuitions going all wacky due to explicit theories they have swallowed...) Clearly, I think, the best way to figure out what a word means includes doing more than just polling some philosophers...Since philosophers don't make up even a significant portion of their linguistic communities. But what a philosopher thinks is the meaning of a word seems like it should count for something, right? Will,

Do you think that philosophers have ANYTHING reliable to say about the meanings of words? I mean, I’m of the opinion, as I hope and think that many are, that the meanings of words are determined by something like the usage and intentions of the linguistic community in general. So nobody’s intuitiions should count for TOO much more than anyone else’s, I guess. But assuming that philosophers are compentent speakers of their native languages (safe assumption) and assuming that they are better trained to examine their concepts, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think that they are going to be at least a bit more reliable than the average person in figuring out things about the meanings of words. (I’m ignoring the problems that philosophers encounter concerning their intuitions going all wacky due to explicit theories they have swallowed…)

Clearly, I think, the best way to figure out what a word means includes doing more than just polling some philosophers…Since philosophers don’t make up even a significant portion of their linguistic communities. But what a philosopher thinks is the meaning of a word seems like it should count for something, right?

]]>