Comment by qwrusz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by qwrusz | Hacker News Reader

I'm a big advocate for philosophy to be taught much more among core liberal arts subjects like literature and history.

When the largest companies in the world have corporate mottos like "Don't be evil" and politics splits the country into parties incredulous how the other side can even think as they do, it's maybe time to teach a bit more philosophy in schools and a bit less Shakespeare (Will should stay, just make room).

The book looks interesting. But the author runs the risk of swinging too far and suggesting too broad a definition for philosophy from its current narrow, useless pedestal in academia.

If philosophy is best regarded as "a universal human activity with many distinct cultural inflections" what does that mean?

Look what happened to art, anything and everything from a Rembrandt painting exhibition to your local hippy spoken word poetry slam is an art event? Wha? Art has lost some of its potential when it becomes that overwhelmingly big and confusing.

Defining what philosophy is (and isn't) and what it offers, seems like a really difficult and important first step before you can sell it to others. It's not clear if the author does this.

I think philosophy is the whole academic tent and people are just egotistical about not being philosophy, needlessly. (only partial sarcasm)

Meh. Critical thinking skills, yes. The vast majority of the rest of philosophy, no. We don't want to reach peak Kierkegaard.

I have to question whether critical thinking skills are really that important. Truly critcal people are labelled as trouble makers who have issues with authority. People who are obedient, who can play the political game, tend to do much better.

This is obviously true in law and politics, and certainly other professions like engineering. But what surprises people is that it's also true within academia - if you don't conform, you don't get tenure.

The people who are successful often come from higher income households where children are made to attend numerous extra-curricular activities so as to give them an early exposure to "gaming" the political structure of a hierarchical organisation.

If those children were learning critical thinking, maybe they would not be simple sad extensions of theirs parents.

Two days ago at a welfare office, I said to a 21yo guy: "Take your free time and read! Learn new things!" and he asked me why...

So many lifes wasted just because you have to only be efficient in a broken system.

(I was at that office because of my too much critical thinking label)

I agree with you that critical thinking is important. The point of my post is not to say "don't think critically" but rather to draw attention to how if you pursue status in a hierarchical organisation, then you need to accept that you're making a sacrifice. If you accept this fact, then you can better weigh a balance between your personal goals and the easiest path to attain status.

No, this isn't obviously true.

Criticizing and critical thinking isn't the same thing.

By "critical people" I meant people who think critically, in the sense of the word critical thinking from the previous sentence

If you never learn Kriekegaard, how would you know?

I'm not a big fan of him but I find his view about politics pretty interesting and actual (from an online translator):

Two powers govern the crowds: jealousy and stupidity. Those who govern know how easy it is to win the flock to his views.

In politics, the public is at stake and no matter to have the truth with him. What counts is winning ground. It flatters the lowest desires.

The majority rules as if truth was a matter of numbers. For Kierkegaard, democracy is a danger because the mass does not try to understand, has no ideal and follows one that flatters most.

Against Hegel, he does not believe that moral virtue can be found only in the state. The individual is, however, constantly under threat. The crowd is lying when the individual is the awakening of the spirit.

there are the fine arts, and then there are arts as in the art of war or as in Michelangelo's sculptures that were merely regarded as craft (at least when he was young, AFAICT). Compare the ambiguous translations https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/τέχνη in contrast to ars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com