A very rough outline....

[balanced_view]

In the modern world, it appears obvious why we study science and try to advance technology. Less obvious to contemporary society is the importance of philosophy. There is a tendency to assume that technology will solve all the problems that can be solved, that science will eventually answer every answerable question. Other questions, questions of

Comments

[thierrys]

i didn't read past the opening paragraph, but so far, it sounds a lot like anthropological theory ^_~

[balanced_view]

Interesting... how much are anthropologists allowed to make normative judgements on right/wrong?

[thierrys]

we can discuss it within the context of a culture or cultural set without much constraint. it's a lot trickier with universals, but the job of the anthropologist is to examine cultures to see what sort of commonalities they may have in that regard. anthropologists are, by the way, allowed to view certain behaviors as wrong even if they are ok within the cultural context -- human sacrifice, for example -- but would be willing to discuss why it's wrong. it's tough because we acknowledge that we are bringing our own cultural upbringing into it, and that our cultural upbringing isn't always the be-all and end-all of knowledge, which is something i think some people who would discuss philosophy have trouble with (just because it's true for them doesn't make it true for others).

[balanced_view]

I would agree with that (most philosophy people having difficulty shedding cultural context). I would also think that anthropology tends to walk a very fine line between cultural and ethical relativism - or at least many anthropologists do.

[spreadsothin]

Artists feel the same way.

There's an advice column in The New York Times Magazine (a Sunday weekly) run by, and called, The Ethicist. I find it very interesting.

[chapt19bluebird]

very interesting.

i like it.

except that you used the masculine pronouns by default. :P

[balanced_view]

When they come up with a decent gender-neutral pronoun that doesn't sound absurd, and when I'm not indirectly referencing myself (or when I stop being a man), then I'll use something else.

Otherwise... it is still the general norm to say "he" - especially since he/she is really cumbersome. :-P

[anonymous]

I think you need some comments from a sci/tech person on this. Of course artists, and those who study liberal arts (or "social sciences") will love what you say, because it's all about how essential and noble they are. I find that it's rarely the scientists who get all hung up on the duality of philosophy/art and science/technology -- but almost always the philosophers/artists. "We must have one to balance the other," they always say, as though attempting to prove that their education/careers are worthwhile.

Obviously we need both scientists and philosophers, both engineers and artists, both mathematicians and anthropologists. I agree with you, to a large extent. But please tell me -- what is the preoccupation with opining about it?

The philosopher studies what is consistent, what is whole, where the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
Does a scientist not do this? Is fitting puzzle pieces something that only philosophers do well?

To some it appears to be sheer arrogance, but I would contend that at its core in a deep-rooted sense

[balanced_view]

hahahaha... you misunderstood some of what I was driving at (although it was intentionally a bit vague), and it's not really addressed at the scientific community as a whole, so much as at a friend of mine who seems to think I'm wasting my education/career with the liberal arts.

"We must have one to balance the other," they always say, as though attempting to prove that their education/careers are worthwhile... So, I don't really disagree with you. It's just that you're trying to shout down an opponent who's not even speaking, and it sounds somewhat preposterous.This is primarily addressed at people who discount the importance of the humanities - including a notable portion of people in the hard sciences. Something that humanities majors have to deal with that most hard science majors don't have to deal with is the phrase "get a real major"/"get a real career" - with the notable implication that math and the hard sciences are the ONLY real career. So, the preoccupation with opining about it is, in my case at least, entirely the

[anonymous]

Allow me for a moment to (partially) address Michelle before I address Sean

[balanced_view]

Three brief points

[anonymous]

This link is completely unfair and biased. That said, it is also hilarious. (yes it is relevant to sean's post)

http://images.somethingawful.com/mjolnir/images/cg09012004/Brendle.jpg

tangible vs. intangible. Or, what is measurable?

[anonymous]

I suppose I'll take a moment to opine on the topic since my departure from Geneseo deprives Sean and myself from random, lengthy dialogue on these subjects

Re: tangible vs. intangible. Or, what is measurable?

[balanced_view]

Xeno's paradox is based on a misconstrual of infinity. He conflates infinite space with infinite divisibility - two rather different things. I'm not sure exactly how the distinction is made, precisely - but that's the core of it.

I'm not a huge fan of the example, but I'm not sure what I would give. In any event, both fields are different, and have different goals.

I do agree that philosophers rarely have a significant direct impact on the masses - although certain philosophers can spark social movements and indirectly affect society.

Who is this, by the way? Catherine (Departure from Geneseo for Ireland)?