Thread: Philosophy: books and discussion
View Single Post
Old 06-29-2010, 03:53 PM   #579
WT Sharpe
Bah, humbug!
WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
WT Sharpe's Avatar
 
Posts: 39,072
Karma: 157049943
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Pro, & a Samsung Galaxy S9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS View Post
There are popularizers - Alain de Botton, Mark Rowlands/, and even Bertrand Russell spring immediately to mind.
How could I forget Russell, whose work I even mentioned in this thread? And Peter Singer; we can't forget him. Still, in this country, with the possible exception of Singer, most people aren't that aware of philosophers and what they do; and the main reason reason Singer is so well-known probably has more to do with his advocacy of animal rights and the fact that the religious right and pro-life groups have kept his name alive; if only for the purpose of unfairly misrepresenting his words and comparing him to Hitler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS View Post
Both Mark Rowlands and Alain de Botton are professional philosophers - in the sense that they earn their living from teaching in universities and writing about philosophy. Most of what they write is written for other philosophers - and their popularizing books are not the same thing as what they teach to their students or write in academic journals.
I must confess that I hadn't heard of either until you mentioned them. I'll have to look into them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS View Post
I don't think the likes of Hawking are belittled by their academic peers, but it has to be recognized that what their popularizing books do is popularize - and in order to popularize they have to simplify, and in order to simplify they have to be less precise - which is why popular versions of science or philosophy don't have the rigour of, and are not taken seriously by people in the academic study of, those disciplines.
Hawking may have benefited from entering the sphere of popular science writing after pioneers like Sagan and Gould, both of who experienced criticism from their colleagues for taking time from their serious endeavors to write for popular audiences. Sagan, in particular, received undue criticism for his flamboyant television style and his efforts as a popularizer; even though he was a respected astronomer and astrophysicist before coming to the public consciousness. Many feel to this day that was the reason he was refused entry into the National Academy of Sciences after being nominated in 1992.
WT Sharpe is offline   Reply With Quote