Quote:
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
Should philosophical discussions in general — and discussions of ethics in particular — make an attempt at being entertaining? In an article on the Huffington Post website, Sam Harris made this comment:
.....Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy. There are two reasons why I haven't done this: First, while I have read a fair amount of this literature, I did not arrive at my position on the relationship between human values and the rest of human knowledge by reading the work of moral philosophers; I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of mind. Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.
..........— Sam Harris (1967 - ), American neuroscientist, author. "Toward a Science of Morality", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha..._b_567185.html, posted May 7, 2010.
What do you think?
This is certainly not meant as a reflection upon anything anyone here has said. Personally, I find everything said in this thread to be fascinating, but full disclosure demands the admission that I'm a boring person with a limited range of interests.
Should philosophers make a greater attempt at mass appeal? Can a discussion that deliberately attempts to avoid academic philosophical terminology be considered truly philosophical? |
Love that quote Tom and love Sam Harris, but don't necessarily agree with all the details of his "ethics" position (or maybe I just don't understand them in enough detail).
Nor do I think ethics are something religious handed down from a god. I think ethics are what are in place that allows a species to survive in a Darwinistic sense.
And I'm sure I have more limited interest in High-falutin' Philosophy than you but I am completely and totally enthralled by human behavior, beliefs, etc.