It doesn’t help that a lot of philosophy is actually bullshit.
If you really want my list, since this is HN, I'll start with Ayn Rand and the Austrian school. You can read this if you like:
https://blog.rongarret.info/2013/03/murray-rothbard-was-idio...
Oh, and since this is HN, I'll also invoke an argument from authority and cite:
1. people who aren't philosophers said some bullshit
2. don't you dare point out people who don't do philosophy shouldn't have their ramblings labeled philosophy
Ayn Rand, a 20th century writer without a university education; Paul Graham, a computer scientist; and the Austrian School, an economics movement, are categorically not entities that have produced or ever will produce philosophy.
That's no a No True Scotsman fallacy. It is a strict application of the definition of philosophy, a deep analysis of certain specific topics. Neither Rand nor Graham is educationally equipped to plumb that depth. And, again, the other name you dropped is not even a philosophical school.
In his defence, Graham does hold a BA (Philosophy) from Cornell University in 1986.
Is your distaste here due to BA degrees rather than PhDs, a dislike of Cornell, or that Graham didn't chase academic philosophy and join a philosophy department?
Wow, I didn't expect to be vindicated quite so definitively when I predicted: "The most likely outcome of that exercise would be for you to invoke the no-true-scotsman fallacy."
> That's no a No True Scotsman fallacy.
It absolutely is:
> the definition of philosophy, a deep analysis of certain specific topics.
I see nothing in that definition about writing in a particular time period or having a university degree, which are the two features you cited that allegedly disqualify Ayn Rand. I also see an awful lot of wiggle-room in the "specific topics" and how one measures whether one's analysis is sufficiently "deep". You exclude economics and computer science from your list of "certain topics" but you don't say what topics are allowed or on what basis this assessment of admissibility is to be made. Your argument is a paragon of muddled thinking, and does more to support my position than refute it.
Oh, so you're not at all engaging in good faith. Thanks for wasting my time. It breaks credulity when you try to argue that economics is a field of philosophy in some attempt to demonstrate I'm engaging in a NTS fallacy.
You obviously haven't read Murray Rothbard.
> How would you expect me to defend it? It's my opinion
One of the first useful things that philosophy teaches you is how to construct a well-rounded argument in support of any position. Following up "philosophy is useless" with "I don't know how to argue my own opinion" demonstrates quite a lack of awareness.
"Alice O'Connor (born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum;[c] February 2 [O.S. January 20], 1905 – March 6, 1982), better known by her pen name Ayn Rand (/aɪn/ ⓘ), was a Russian and American writer and philosopher.[3] She is known for her fiction and for developing a philosophical system which she named Objectivism."
For a list of topics that aren't bullshit, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good starting point.
Why do you think I needed to? The phrase "a lot" has an established meaning in the English language.
> or mention which topics in philosophy you think are legitimate
That's true. I was writing an HN comment, not a review paper for submission to a peer-review journal. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to notice that my comment was made in the context of a discussion of an article entitled "Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy" and to infer from that I was referring to philosophical topics popular among silicon valley tech bros. The specific topics I had in mind are mainly political and economic theories, which not everyone considers philosophy. But I'll point as an undeniable example the work of Curtis Yarvin a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug who, rather incredibly, attracts a huge audience by advocating for the divine right of kings, among other absurdities.
In some sense, I guess Curtis Yarvin could be considered (very bad) political philosophy, but he's so far removed from serious philosophy that he wouldn't have crossed my mind.
Now that you've pointed the Yarvin thing out to me, it makes sense and I think I have a better idea of what you were trying to say.
Oh, the irony. If you look at the rest of the comments in this thread you will find people insisting that the Austrian School is economics, not philosophy.
And this is exactly the problem. Philosophy is whatever other self-styled philosophers say it is, and that authority ultimately can be traced back to the people writing the checks. Yarvin is able to do what he does in no small measure because he has (or at least had) Peter Thiel as a patron. In 50-100 years, if the Republicans win the next election, Yarvin will be taught alongside Trump and Vance as being among the brilliant thinkers who threw off the yoke of woke and ushered in the new era of enlightenment.
It's ultimately all about money and power, not truth.
Find me any field in which there isn’t “a lot” of BS.
There are definitely some non-BS philosophers, like Dan Dennett and Tim Maudlin. But really they are more like scientists than philosophers. In Maudlin's case, he's really a physicist, he just happens to work in a philosophy department.
This comment does nothing but make you look ignorant.
The problem is that you're citing people known for their popularisation, not academic work. None of that is subject to the kind of critique that happens between academics.
I can cite a lot of bullshit in academic philosophy, but so what? There's a lot of bullshit in academia in general. There is bullshit in physics (string theory). There is bullshit in chemistry (James Tour). There is bullshit in botany (John Sanford). There is bullshit everywhere. If you really want an example from academic philosophy, I'll give you John Searle and the Chinese Room.
I trust you are smart enough to immediately extrapolate more than I would be able to type in the same amount of time.
That being said, I don't get the feeling you're acting in good faith, which is why I'm not spending more time on this.
That's actually not a bad analogy, except for the tacit implication that RFK is a crackpot and not worthy of serious consideration. I, of course, agree with that. However, the sad fact of the matter is that RFK is the United States Secretary of Health and Human Servivces. He was appointed to that position by a democratically elected President and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate (or at least as close to democratically elected as it gets in the USA). So dismissing RFK as a crackpot is a no-true-scotsman fallacy. Like it or not, RFK is part of the biology establishment. In fact, he is one of the principal leaders of the biological establishment. The only difference between RFK and philosophers is that RFK is a recent and, hopefully, temporary aberration, whereas philosophy is shot through-and-through with RFKs and has been for thousands of years.