How philosophy makes progress. Philosophy isn’t literature, and it is isn’t failed or primitive science. Instead, according to Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, its task is to make our points of view increasingly coherent. “It’s in terms of our increased coherence that the measure of progress has to be taken, not in terms suitable for evaluating science or literature. We lead conceptually compartmentalized lives, our points of view balkanized so that we can live happily with our internal tensions and contradictions, many of the borders fortified by unexamined presumptions. It’s the job of philosophy to undermine that happiness, and it’s been at it ever since the Athenians showed their gratitude to Socrates for services rendered by offering him a cupful of hemlock.”
E0: Ethics in general
More about Plato, Google, neuroscience, etc.
Colin McGinn’s review of Rebecca Goldstein’s “Plato at the Googleplex.” Here “Ms. Goldstein employs her novelistic skills to sparkling effect by weaving abstract concepts into concrete modern narratives. At a cable news station, he is grilled by one Roy McCoy, who is not a bit intimidated by his distinguished Greek guest: ‘Okay, so they tell me you’re a big deal in philosophy, Plato. I’m going to tell you up front—because that’s the kind of guy I am, up-front—that I don’t think much of philosophers.’ Plato coolly responds: ‘Many don’t. The term attracts a wide range of reaction, from admiration to amusement to animadversion. Some people think philosophers are worthless, and others that they are worth everything in the world. Sometimes they take on the appearance of statesmen, and sometimes of sophists. Sometimes, too, they might give the impression that they are completely insane.'”
More about Plato and Google
What would Plato think of TV? And now Plato is on Twitter.
Why study philosophy?
To challenge your own point of view. An interview with philosopher and novelist Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, author of Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away.
Is trolleyology dangerous?
The dangers of thought experiments in ethics. “Thus there are the two dangers of ethical thought experiments: First, they cannot be used as conclusive disproofs. … Second, they might seem convincing and clear even though they are not.”
Philosophy on the battlefield
A philosopher-general. To succeed in battle, study philosophy. “People used to tell me that business administration is for the practical life and philosophy is for the spirit. … Through the years I found it is exactly the opposite — I used philosophy much more practically. Philosophers that spoke about how to balance, how to prioritize principles in a right way. … [t]his is something that I find very helpful.”
The power of philosophy
Philosophy? Why would you want to study something useless like that? GRE scores by major.
Science … philosophy’s friend or foe?
Are the humanities (including especially philosophy) and science two separate and independent methods that deal with two separate and independent realms? Or should they be integrated with each contributing to the other? Or, as Arts & Letters Daily summarized the discussion: “An academic turf and budget battle is under way between science and the humanities. Are you for porous borders or a two-state solution?” Is science the single best way to figure out what reality is and how we ought to live our lives, or is it philosophy’s task to tell science what its limits are? This is “round three” of a discussion initiated by Steven Pinker and then picked up by Leon Wieseltier. The “round three” exchange includes links to the first two rounds. And here is Daniel Dennett’s comment on the debate.
Philosophy defended as conceptual analysis
Philosophy is not a ‘ridiculous’ pursuit. Philosophers work with and on concepts. Concepts “are the hinges or links of reasoning processes. They describe those aspects of thought that enables it to make the right connections: connections with the rest of the world; with other thoughts; and with actions. I use the word ‘right’ here to indicate the possibility of getting these connections wrong.”
Philosophy … the great conversation
Talk with me. “Western philosophy has its origins in conversation, in face-to-face discussions about reality, our place in the cosmos, and how we should live. It began with a sense of mystery, wonder, and confusion, and the powerful desire to get beyond mere appearances to find truth or, if not that, at least some kind of wisdom or balance. Socrates started the conversation about philosophical conversation. … The point of philosophy is not to have a range of facts at your disposal, though that might be useful … rather, it is to develop the skills and sensitivity to be able to argue about some of the most significant questions we can ask ourselves, questions about reality and appearance, life and death, god and society. As Plato’s Socrates tells us, ‘These are not trivial questions we are discussing here, we are discussing how to live.'”
Socratically Speaking 