Never said it was, but it was one of your up front examples of bad stuffz, so I figure fair enough to have a crack at it. Point being that if it aint as bad as you make out, then it's not a good example to use.
It was pretttttty bad. Original point being that Feynman was full of shit when trying to discard
all of philosophy.
Well those people are bloody idjuts if they think that anything (science or whatever) is infallible.
The biggest idjusts, I find, are the ones who look at the starry sky and say "Wow isn't science amazing!"
Hey dumbass, that sky, those stars are not science.
They conflate what science studies with science itself.
Talk about confusing the map for the territory.
Which will only work if your ethical framework is constrained in advance to give the result you want.
And that framework is always, for everyone, rooted in a particular philosophy, whether they call it that or not, whether they are aware of it or not. Another example: much of our current views on morality (especially sexual morality) are based on Kant's views, who was heavily influenced by Christian views on sexuality. Most people don't know this, and some who identify as secular may deny it. But if you actually read Kant's views on sex, there is quite a clear line between what he said and what is available now in media, movies, songs, pop-psychology books and shows on "love", "romance" and "marriage".
So, our frameworks, ethical or otherwise, are inherited by philosophers of yore... I say let's dive in, transcend their boundaries, and figure this shit out for ourselves
(heretic philosophy)
Nice try, but considering that the war against Japan was basically a defensive response to Japanese imperial aggression, would your philosophy preclude you taking steps to defend yourself and others?
If it would, you are off the hook on this one (although most likely dead or enslaved). If it wouldn't, you aint off the hook.
Hmmm. Not that simple. I'll get you some of the research I have in the next few days on this particular incident. Have to fish through my bookmarked journal articles first.
Right, so you're confirming what I originally said, which was that you can't rely on philosophy as a balance unless you think it is rigged to give the result you want.
You can DO philosophy to refine your own premises, and you are always applying your philosophies. Philosophy is at its basis, the question: Why? When you gotta feed your family, it is not the time to ask that question. But it's good to reexamine and refine one's views in between meals
Applied ethics is a subset of philosophy, and yes there are differing views and schools of thought. But disregarding philosophy altogether makes for some very unethical uses of science.
Topic: z0mg philololosophy s0xerz