Maybe you should just give up philosophy and do experimental psychology. Take the traditional problems in philosophy (which have not been tractable using philosophical argumentation) and reformulate them as hypotheses testable using experimental designs. Isn't that what his proposal amounts to?
What this really comes down to is what one means by "philosophical revolution" and "philosophical problem." Do you mean a social manifestation of disagreement that merely happened to occur within a discourse we stipulate as being under the domain of "philosophy"? Is a philosophical problem something that can only occur between persons we label "philosophers"? In any event, scientific-observation methods were listed. Now do you aim to discover what human behavior means, (x)or how brains behave?
It's internally inconsistent to claim that (roughly) "philosophy is itself, without surprise, subject to revolutions" and, at the same time, "philosophy, even until today, is concerned with philosophical problems which are continuous with those which vexed even the ancient Greeks." Which problems, exactly? And what does it mean for a discourse to undergo a "revolution"; is this not a critical event in which *some* problems fail to endure across a cultural shift?
@evespikey I agree. The music is massively distracting. And the deer head is a Twin Peaks reference, I think. Remember when the deer head suddenly wasn't mounted anymore? When they found Laura's safety deposit box?
That's the problem. When people learn what those questions are, the questions Plato was trying to answer, they'll realize that it's incredibly naive to think that psychology, of all things, can solve them. Psychology may tell us what Glaucon means by the word 'justice', but it will not tell us what justice is. And it's laziness to think it will- an excuse not to read Plato, I think.
One of the basic questions posed by epistemologers ( or is it epistemologists?) is whether the observed world is trustworthy. After all, the senses can be deceitful at times. Typically, this is where science and philosophy diverge; scientists assume that the observable world is credible, rationalistic philosophers dont. So long as the experimental philosophers admit that they are representative of empiricists, not rationalists, I'd support the movement.
Yes, I think you're right. Cognoscience? Which philosophers are you speaking of? Steven Pinker? Richard Rorty? I'd love to know more...Is this still though a mechanical view of the hard problem? Again, please say more!
Steven pinker, daniel dennet, dan sperber, george lakoff, Andy clark, chomsky at some point, these are the people he means. Also, one of Prinz's mentors is Barsalou, so you might check him out.
The Third Wave! I love it! But what are the "problems"? What are the questions? Much is said about the inability of previous paradigms of philosophical thought to answer these fundamental questions, but I still don't know what the questions are. Is that coming in Episode 2 of "Experimental Philosophers on YouTube?" I can'te wait!
Big Band. Be-bop. Psychedelic jazz-fusion -- The Third Wave. Brilliant!
this video is not so great
sunmanho 3 months ago
Funny thing is ... this vid has nothing to do with experimental philosophy ... lollz
AWASHA 8 months ago
jesse prinz is god
imsokool81 1 year ago 3
Maybe you should just give up philosophy and do experimental psychology. Take the traditional problems in philosophy (which have not been tractable using philosophical argumentation) and reformulate them as hypotheses testable using experimental designs. Isn't that what his proposal amounts to?
tfennimore 2 years ago
What this really comes down to is what one means by "philosophical revolution" and "philosophical problem." Do you mean a social manifestation of disagreement that merely happened to occur within a discourse we stipulate as being under the domain of "philosophy"? Is a philosophical problem something that can only occur between persons we label "philosophers"? In any event, scientific-observation methods were listed. Now do you aim to discover what human behavior means, (x)or how brains behave?
nerdfiles 2 years ago
It's internally inconsistent to claim that (roughly) "philosophy is itself, without surprise, subject to revolutions" and, at the same time, "philosophy, even until today, is concerned with philosophical problems which are continuous with those which vexed even the ancient Greeks." Which problems, exactly? And what does it mean for a discourse to undergo a "revolution"; is this not a critical event in which *some* problems fail to endure across a cultural shift?
nerdfiles 2 years ago
I hope you don't plan on reducing questions of ethics to neuropsychology in this new revolution. For obvious reasons.
grimmigenoisepimper 2 years ago
Wow I'd hate to be introduced to that guy at a bar.
mcartha82 2 years ago
Thanks for explaining the burning armchair.
InfectedDaemon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
click here for all the wierdest philosofical questions.... answerd!
Filosafa 3 years ago
the music is very distracting. Also the symbolism of the deer head doesn't really support the anti-armchair approach.
evespikey 3 years ago
evespikey you are a complete idiot
wakeboardumb 3 years ago
The music is Miles Davis- Bitches Brew
terminaldeity 2 years ago 5
@evespikey I agree. The music is massively distracting. And the deer head is a Twin Peaks reference, I think. Remember when the deer head suddenly wasn't mounted anymore? When they found Laura's safety deposit box?
...but what does it all MEAN?!?
grimmigenoisepimper 2 years ago
hey that's my professor!
jnicholas87 3 years ago
Why Jesse has the same accent and way of speaking of Steve Pinker?
remistofeles 3 years ago
aspergers
shakeyourdimsims 3 years ago 2
not at all - he's a very emotionally perceptive person
rosiecorie 2 years ago
@rosiecorie
Ha! funny funny..
mohamedbongfish 1 year ago
That's the problem. When people learn what those questions are, the questions Plato was trying to answer, they'll realize that it's incredibly naive to think that psychology, of all things, can solve them. Psychology may tell us what Glaucon means by the word 'justice', but it will not tell us what justice is. And it's laziness to think it will- an excuse not to read Plato, I think.
carlbrownson 3 years ago
is that bitches brew in the background?
DoctorCochrane 3 years ago
Yes!
milesonguitar 3 years ago
i wish he would dumbthisdown for my dumbass.
kirkwars 4 years ago
One of the basic questions posed by epistemologers ( or is it epistemologists?) is whether the observed world is trustworthy. After all, the senses can be deceitful at times. Typically, this is where science and philosophy diverge; scientists assume that the observable world is credible, rationalistic philosophers dont. So long as the experimental philosophers admit that they are representative of empiricists, not rationalists, I'd support the movement.
theroamingfoot 4 years ago
you are clearly sitting in a CHAIR. an ARMCHAIR perhaps? one can only SPECULATE.
tybeet 4 years ago
Yes, I think you're right. Cognoscience? Which philosophers are you speaking of? Steven Pinker? Richard Rorty? I'd love to know more...Is this still though a mechanical view of the hard problem? Again, please say more!
cosmicpilgrim 4 years ago
There is no hard problem.
DrRandale 4 years ago
Steven pinker, daniel dennet, dan sperber, george lakoff, Andy clark, chomsky at some point, these are the people he means. Also, one of Prinz's mentors is Barsalou, so you might check him out.
oxbryacal 3 years ago
The Third Wave! I love it! But what are the "problems"? What are the questions? Much is said about the inability of previous paradigms of philosophical thought to answer these fundamental questions, but I still don't know what the questions are. Is that coming in Episode 2 of "Experimental Philosophers on YouTube?" I can'te wait!
Big Band. Be-bop. Psychedelic jazz-fusion -- The Third Wave. Brilliant!
lynchiepoo 4 years ago