re: World's Smartest Man Banned From FB

quote:

---

I like philosophy. I've read Kant, Nietzsche, Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Russell, and Leibniz (perhaps the smartest man to ever live). I try to keep up with the modern people like Searle, Dennett, Foucalt, etc. I also try and read pop-sci when I can from the physicists like Greene, Smolin, Gott, Kaku, Thorne, Hawking, etc

---

Good on you, man. I really do wish I had more time to do so myself. Though I'd be a liar if I didn't admit to squandering enough time to be further along than I am.

quote:

---

Problem is, philosophy never goes anywhere. At some point you have to admit that solving the "mind-body" problem wont happen. They've tried for 2 thousand years now and never really gotten anywhere. We're still stuck where Aristotle left us. Sure, there's been tons of work done since then, but none of it convincing. No one agrees on anything.

---

I don't think that's quite true. I've only read bits of Plato, and am currently trying to engage his works more dutifully now, but what I do know of his works, I find masterful. And I'm not sure anyone is going to do better... which is not the same thing as philosophy not going anywhere... The thing is, with philosophy, it's always-- or should be always-- be about wisdom and internal growth. For science, incremental knowledge built up over successive experiments may lead to new discoveries like a new type of Bose-Einstein condensate, which may then open avenues for more exploration and discovery. For philosophy, it's about how is this discovery best used in service of my fellow man?

So, as I see it, science is absolutely valid and useful for discovering information and for constructing systems from the bottom up. Philosophy is the natural top down worldview accomplice to science that should help scientists understand implications and how to use science wisely. But to put a cap on philosophy and say it's going nowhere is only to say you yourself are not finding practical use in becoming more wise. And it is precisely the lack of philosophical grounding on the part of science (in an over-general way) that is concerning to so many (whether we're talking about chemical/nuclear weapons, privacy-invasive technology, irresponsible/unethical creation and promotion of pharmaceuticals and narcotics, etc.).

Back to Plato for a moment, just look at his Alcibiades, where he puts forth the ideas of different kinds of knowledge through Socrates and has Socrates shred the arrogant young Alcibiades, and you'll find a gem of philosophical insight. I'll probably butcher it here, but roughly: 1) There's what you know and you should be able to generally figure out when you acquired that knowledge. 2) There's what you know you don't know. And, 3) There's what you don't know, but you think you know. When you don't know something, but you think you do, that's double ignorance. Politicians are an easy example, as they nearly always claim to know what justice is, but it is horrifically apparent that so few do. Double ignorance is, in short, at the root of so much of what's wrong with the world as it's run.

The exposition of this idea alone is brilliant and I don't really think anyone could improve much on it, though they might re-state it in useful ways to a new audience. And there's always room to grow personally from obervations like these.

Moving towards the mind-body problem as you call it, there's a ton of work done by Plato, neoplatonics, egyptians, taoists, Hindu and Vedic culture and so on. There's numerous systems with vast bodies of knowledge (if often symbolic or analogical) which lead to "experiences" and greater understanding. People who have put the work in with the right mindset and motives generally begin to experience things. Scientists do seem to be opening their minds at least a little to genuinely understanding some of these things, but for a long time, have been closed-minded. They typically discredit experiences as evidence without putting the work in themselves to validate it... which is ironically unscientific. Or, as Plato might call it double-ignorant.