8 ms·

It's not obvious at all from your comment, since you didn't qualify "a lot" or mention which topics in philosophy you think are legitimate.

lisper 1mo ago
> you didn't qualify "a lot" Why do you think I needed to? The phrase "a lot" has an established meaning in the English language. > or mention which topics in philosophy you think are legitimate That's true. I was writing an HN comment, not a review paper for submission to a peer-review journal. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to notice that my comment was made in the context of a discussion of an article entitled "Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy" and to infer from that I was referring to philosophical topics popular among silicon valley tech bros. The specific topics I had in mind are mainly political and economic theories, which not everyone considers philosophy. But I'll point as an undeniable example the work of Curtis Yarvin a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug who, rather incredibly, attracts a huge audience by advocating for the divine right of kings, among other absurdities.
- fasterik 1mo ago
  When I read "a lot of philosophy is bullshit" without qualification I read it as an anti-intellectual statement either dismissing academic philosophy as a discipline, or confusing philosophy for self-help/mysticism. In some sense, I guess Curtis Yarvin could be considered (very bad) political philosophy, but he's so far removed from serious philosophy that he wouldn't have crossed my mind.
  - lisper 1mo ago
    In the context of a discussion of the kinds of philosophy that silicon valley tech bros misread, what would cross your mind?
    - fasterik 1mo ago
      Curtis Yarvin honestly wouldn't have crossed my mind as a philosopher. I think of him as a political pundit. If I were thinking of right-wing philosophers, I would think of Burke, Hayek, Nozick, etc. I might disagree with some of their ideas, but I wouldn't call them "bad philosophy". Now that you've pointed the Yarvin thing out to me, it makes sense and I think I have a better idea of what you were trying to say.
      - lisper 1mo ago
        > Hayek Oh, the irony. If you look at the rest of the comments in this thread you will find people insisting that the Austrian School is economics, not philosophy. And this is exactly the problem. Philosophy is whatever other self-styled philosophers say it is, and that authority ultimately can be traced back to the people writing the checks. Yarvin is able to do what he does in no small measure because he has (or at least had) Peter Thiel as a patron. In 50-100 years, if the Republicans win the next election, Yarvin will be taught alongside Trump and Vance as being among the brilliant thinkers who threw off the yoke of woke and ushered in the new era of enlightenment. It's ultimately all about money and power, not truth.

lisper 1mo ago

> you didn't qualify "a lot" Why do you think I needed to? The phrase "a lot" has an established meaning in the English language. > or mention which topics in philosophy you think are legitimate That's true. I was writing an HN comment, not a review paper for submission to a peer-review journal. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to notice that my comment was made in the context of a discussion of an article entitled "Silicon Valley misreads science fiction and undermines democracy" and to infer from that I was referring to philosophical topics popular among silicon valley tech bros. The specific topics I had in mind are mainly political and economic theories, which not everyone considers philosophy. But I'll point as an undeniable example the work of Curtis Yarvin a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug who, rather incredibly, attracts a huge audience by advocating for the divine right of kings, among other absurdities.

fasterik 1mo ago
When I read "a lot of philosophy is bullshit" without qualification I read it as an anti-intellectual statement either dismissing academic philosophy as a discipline, or confusing philosophy for self-help/mysticism. In some sense, I guess Curtis Yarvin could be considered (very bad) political philosophy, but he's so far removed from serious philosophy that he wouldn't have crossed my mind.
- lisper 1mo ago
  In the context of a discussion of the kinds of philosophy that silicon valley tech bros misread, what would cross your mind?
  - fasterik 1mo ago
    Curtis Yarvin honestly wouldn't have crossed my mind as a philosopher. I think of him as a political pundit. If I were thinking of right-wing philosophers, I would think of Burke, Hayek, Nozick, etc. I might disagree with some of their ideas, but I wouldn't call them "bad philosophy". Now that you've pointed the Yarvin thing out to me, it makes sense and I think I have a better idea of what you were trying to say.
    - lisper 1mo ago
      > Hayek Oh, the irony. If you look at the rest of the comments in this thread you will find people insisting that the Austrian School is economics, not philosophy. And this is exactly the problem. Philosophy is whatever other self-styled philosophers say it is, and that authority ultimately can be traced back to the people writing the checks. Yarvin is able to do what he does in no small measure because he has (or at least had) Peter Thiel as a patron. In 50-100 years, if the Republicans win the next election, Yarvin will be taught alongside Trump and Vance as being among the brilliant thinkers who threw off the yoke of woke and ushered in the new era of enlightenment. It's ultimately all about money and power, not truth.