Hacker News Reader

Comment by lisper | Hacker News Reader

How would you expect me to defend it? It's my opinion. I could give you a long list of things in philosophy that I consider BS, but what good would that do? Do you really doubt that I could provide such a list? The most likely outcome of that exercise would be for you to invoke the no-true-scotsman fallacy and say, "Oh, of course those things are bullshit, but that's not real philosophy." And the fact that I can make that prediction with confidence is my defense.

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:

https://paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

View on HN

I think it's ironically telling about your opinion on philosophy that your argument is illogical and boils down to:

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.

> Neither Rand nor Graham is educationally equipped to plumb that depth

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?

> people who aren't philosophers said some bullshit

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.

> 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

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.

> when you try to argue that economics is a field of philosophy

You obviously haven't read Murray Rothbard.

> a lot of philosophy is actually bullshit

> 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.

Apparently they don't teach you about straw-man arguments. I didn't say philosophy was useless, I said a lot of philosophy is bullshit. That is not the same thing. A lot of physics nowadays is bullshit (like string theory) but that is not to say that physics is useless.

Ayn Rand and the Austrian school aren't philosophers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

"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."

She's a philosopher in the same way that Erich von Daniken is a scientist

And so, as I predicted, we come full-circle back to the no-true-scotsman fallacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com