Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

slickwombat t1_j6oizqo wrote

Reply to comment by XiphosAletheria in Great Philosophers Are Bad Philosophers by thenousman

Philosophy aims at truth. But the great philosophers didn't "get almost everything wrong," such that they're mere historical curiosities and unworthy of consideration otherwise.

Huemer says this based on a parody-level analysis of literally three ideas from three philosophers, but it's not right even if we just consider those examples. Kantian constructivism, for example, is still extremely influential in contemporary moral philosophy. Hume's skepticism, while often seen as mainly setting the stage for Kant, is hardly a dead idea that's fallen by the wayside; his problem of induction is still debated, for example.

8

thenousman OP t1_j6p5h8g wrote

I second this though I think it’s important to highlight that the level of analysis of Huemer’s post is appropriate for a blogpost. He gets carried away but if his aim with his blogposts is to provoke philosophical reflection then I think he has succeeded. I rarely agree with him, but he makes me think a lot better which I why I continue to read his blog.

0

slickwombat t1_j6pg4lr wrote

I think the level of analysis should be adequate to support the claim made, regardless of the format. So if a claim like "the great philosophers of the western canon are all wrong and bad at philosophy" can't be supported in blog post length, it probably ought not be made in a blog post. Unless of course the point is just to be provocative without substance, which would be pretty ironic in this case.

4

thenousman OP t1_j6pgcks wrote

C’mon now, his blog is literally called Fake Nous 😂

0