back
35 comments
Big fan of Agnes Callard, and ofc, Socrates. I know many people dislike philosophy because they consider it to be a form of intellectual gymnastics, but at its best it's almost spiritual activity, a concern with the whole purpose of life, a desire to not live as an unthinking automaton, impelled by instinct or social pressure. Socrates is the ultimate and prototypical embodiment of this, a refusal to take anything at its word, a man who interrogated the deepest things and pointed us to the abundant fruits of a life of inquiry.
I do think that philosophy fundamentally is intellectual gymnastics, in the sense that it is a game or an art that shouldn't be expected to have any "productive/practical/useful" output.

I also think that philosophy is an extremely valuable human activity worthy of lots of respect, likewise generally with any kind of gymnastics (sports), games or art.

Productivity is not the only reason to live for humans, and many productive people are not driven by productivity. Most scientists and engineers are much more driven by curiosity, mastery, morality or aesthetics (not just visual, but intellectual beauty and elegance). It's generally the same with most ambitious people, sure they may be superficially driven by power or money, but I think it's much more about realizing a certain aesthetic vision of who you want to be as a person.

All of these activities lead to productive outcomes as side-effects. Games are not qualitatively much different, they may just be quantitatively less efficient. And, even if it shouldn't be expected (shouldn't be the reason to do them), they do tend to have some great productive output now-and-then.

I suppose that this has a parallel cynical interpretation:

- Humans tend to be selfish, in the sense that they tend to prioritize activities that develop their ego. Well generally activities that have pleasurable outcomes, and developing one's ego tends to be pleasurable due the heuristics evolution has baked into us. I guess that those that get more pleasure out of developing their ego are called ambitious.

- Productivity is fundamentally about being selfless: doing things that are useful for others.

- These aims align to different degrees for different activities, and I suppose that they align less for things that we call games, and I think that philosophy is closer to this category than otherwise.

- The most obvious and consistent productive side-effect of games might be as entertainment for expectators. I honestly think that the main value of philosophy is that it is just engaging and entretaining to read, which is also worthy of respect. Games and philosophy also tend to have other more substantive productive outputs, but much less frequently.

I'm not a big fan of this perspective, but I do think that it is somewhat equivalent to my thoughts above.

Philosophy is about living beyond the instincts given by evolution. It’s about living through reason, rather than pleasure. Pleasure is still important and a part of it, too.
I find it amusing that I'm slightly disagreeing about philosophy with `philosopher1234` but I do think there is a distinction between wisdom and reason and "philosophy", after all, translates to "love of, or friendship with, wisdom".
Perhaps, but I think philosophys rightful purpose is about overcoming our drives and following some kind of moral, reason driven life.
While I certainly can't claim that I truly understand their works, Hume and Kant and Hegel have taught me certain mental devices and ways of thinking that I use every day at my job.
I am fundamentally incapable of understanding people who don't like philosophy. To me it's akin to being someone who doesn't like music or doesn't like art or doesn't like poetry. To be incapable of finding something that resonates with you in at least one of these domains is equivalent to being inhuman—I just cannot even comprehend how a living human being like that could exist.

My sense is that people who claim to dislike philosophy either had a bad introduction to it or have been so inculcated with a way of existence reduced to "problem solving"—life viewed as a "great entry examination" or standardized test—that they are no longer capable of actual abstract curiosity and thought and are only able to proceed in spaces that are already highly constrained. Philosophical viewpoints are highly varied and highly entertaining. In some ways it is far closer in kind to art even though it is the matron of all of our sciences.

Big fan of Philosophy, not a big fan of Agnes Callard. I love Socrates as much as the next person, but there have been millennia of philosophical inquiry since.

I hate the trend among public intellectuals to pick some ancient figure and then project all modern questions and anxieties onto them. You end up not learning much about Socrates, but much about Agnes Callard.

I'll take modern academic philosophy with all its jargon and impenetrability over the simplistic parables of Callard.

I don't know anything about Agnes or their work, but I agree that such a general trend exists. There is a whole cottage industry of self-professed self-help gurus that make their money by presenting a lazy, straight reading of e.g. the stoics (ignoring any actual academic research) and repackaging their work as mantras to get you through your nine to five—oh but, no don't develop a critical consciousness about society please, just accept the current structure without question and repeat these dumbed down versions of the "ancient wisdom" and keep buying my books, thanks! It's a complete bastardization of the real heart of philosophy, and I really dislike such grifters.
What is the real heart of philosophy?
The real heart of philosophy is that it is an academic discipline that attempts to formalize a method of inquiry that is by nature iconoclastic and resistant to definitive answers. Philosophy also attempts to create rigor in an area where, unlike some other academic fields, most humans can do it, but most do it very poorly (myself included).
My problem with Socrates isn't that it's mental gymnastics. My problem with Socrates is that he was an anti-democratic totalitarian and that he was disingenuous and manipulative (that's literally, explicitly what sophistry is).

Defenders of Socrates are generally enamored with his reputation, retreating into appeals to authority rather than any logical or empirical defense of his ideas.

In a larger sense, my problem with philosophers is generally that they are still talking about outdated figures like Socrates. What little he got right has been refined over the last few millenia, and by continuing to obsess over him we're continuing to propagate his (numerous!) mistakes along with what little good he had to say. Philosophy is a really interesting and even important area of study, but the ideas are what matter, not the people, and the obsession with the people really holds the field back by keeping stupid ideas alive long past their expiration date.

For me, a person who dramatically prefers democracy to totalitarianism, Socrates' critiques of democracy hold up quite well in our present context.

Why limit this criticism to philosophers? Should we drop Einstein from the theory of relativity (especially given how wrong he was about aspects of quantum mechanics)? Or Newton from mechanics and so on.

> For me, a person who dramatically prefers democracy to totalitarianism, Socrates' critiques of democracy hold up quite well in our present context.

Which critiques specifically?

Most of the critiques he made I'm aware of are not fundamental problems with democracy, but rather problems for which we have solutions in 2025--in cases where these problems are not solved it is because of concerted efforts by totalitarians to undermine democracy that these problems are not solved. As it turns out, a lot of work has been put into addressing the problems Socrates mentioned. In fact, it's arguable that some of the solutions were known at the time of Socrates, and Plato did not feel motivated to share facts which disagreed with his teacher, because, you know, sophistry.

And, ultimately, Socrates presented all these ideas with the rather self-serving conclusion that philosophers should be kings--so as someone who "dramatically prefers democracy to totalitarianism", I'm sure you found some point along the way where he got it wrong.

> Why limit this criticism to philosophers? Should we drop Einstein from the theory of relativity (especially given how wrong he was about aspects of quantum mechanics)? Or Newton from mechanics and so on.

Uh, yes, obviously, which is why this has already happened, because physics is a field which is concerned with whether what they're teaching is true or not.

Ask a physics major: did they read anything actually by Einstein? Did they read anything actually by Newton? The answer will invariably be "no", because they learned from modern textbooks which at least make an effort to communicate what we know to be true about physics. And sure, those textbooks might mention that an idea was discovered by Einstein or Newton, because they did get a lot of things right. But they aren't just having you read Einstein or Newton in physics classes, because Einstein and Newton got enough wrong that presenting their ideas unfiltered and uncorrected to students would be counterproductive. This is exactly what philosophy should be doing, and it's exactly what I'm saying philosophy is failing to do.

The argument you're making is founded upon facts you only know because physics did a better job than philosophy did. The only reason you know Einstein or Newton got things wrong is because physics actually finds the mistakes of its heroes and corrects them, instead of passing them on like a genetic disease to future generations.

It seems like you're accusing Socrates of making the worse argument the stronger and corrupting the youth?
I'm not accusing long-dead Greeks of corrupting long-dead Greeks, as I'm pretty unconcerned with the affairs of long-dead Greeks.

I'm accusing modern philosophers of spreading stupid and often harmful ideas because they are too enamored with a few long-dead Greeks to admit their ideas were often stupid and harmful.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think many readers here will be among the type to feel that philosophy is not 'practical' enough, myself included. But there is something to be said for humoring (some) philosophy from time to time, it really does engage the mind in a way you wouldn't find elsewhere.
If we set up a ladder of abstraction, going from the most practical to the most abstract discipline, I think we'll arrive to something like: Engineering -> Physics -> Math -> Philosophy

We progressively move from the How to the Why, Philosophy being the ultimate Why?

Then again, I'm but a humble engineer so why would my opinion matter :D

i like to think about how the influences flow in all directions.

for example at one time there were a bunch of weirdos arguing over some abstruse philosophical question about the fundamental nature of true logical statements, and one of them came up with the “Turing machine”.

then once it was actually built (by engineers, by way of physical and mathematical advances), it started to cause all kinds of confusion in philosophy of mind and other areas.

Funnily enough, I tend to think the arrows should be in the other direction. Philosophy birthed Math, which was necessary for Physics, ... etc.

That's not to say Philosophy has outlived its usefulness, but... it was probably more consequential 2000, 400 or 200 years ago, in practice.

(EDIT: I should add... there is also a lot of absolute dogwank in Philosophy too... but I think that's universal for any field, tbf.)

Absolutely. It's difficult as someone on the former end of that scale to reorient your mind short term and enjoy philosophy, I think we get grounded into practicality / do things / get results mode, and it's a great exercise to try and engage wonder / analyze / enquiry mode.
Socrates probably would have annoyed me too.

I’m terrible at picking words. Can’t stand the popular notion of “debate,” internet or in person; so much uncharitable interpretation, obtuseness and deflection, and being held to a standard of angelic impeccable speech when trying to express something.

Intellectual consistency can be vastly overrated. I don’t pretend to have answers, I still have convictions that can’t be proven. I get by to a fair extent on vibes and faith—and the faith that if I continue re-examining myself, I might hope to approach truth, and might be a better person.

I'd argue that most useful non-trivial things we have figured out how to do have required thinking precisely about complex truths, language is a big part of that.

Sure of course, vibes are enough for operating decently as a human, which is all we need most of the time. But that's a very low bar, we are trying to do much harder things in science, engineering and business.

I agree that there tends to be a lot of pointless discussion on semantics in debate, which is why we tend to rely more on structured languages like maths notation or programming languages to make it practical to operate on really complex ideas. But natural language is all we have for many fields of thought, so some discipline is required to use it properly if you are trying to figure out something serious.

You made an important point though. If we want to do philosophy more seriously we reach for formal logic, at which point it becomes maths, or we do experiments, which is science. To an extent what call philosophy is the attempt to figure out complex truths using ill-defined language and no experimental verification, which is a loosing battle and quite annoying indeed.

The "Tolstoy Problem" is an interesting phenomenon that occurs to me from time to time.

Paraphrased, if I know I am close to death, maybe an hour away, and I know there's no time left to change things, how will I feel about my legacy or net outcome of my existence?

I find it a useful contemplative exercise that everyone could do from time to time, especially a few world leaders IMHO.

It's easy for one's subconscious to feed the line that, yes, I'll sort it all out tomorrow. But it's the "no time left" constraint that focuses the mind.

I feel like this also only works if you care about having a net impact. Though I suppose that’s a definition problem. My first read assumes it means an impact on the world, but I tend to believe that my life purpose is more “local” - I’d be happy to say I lived with kindness and made those around me happier.
I already know, and I hope I'm not close to death. Happiness is the net outcome of my existence. Ashes to ashes is my legacy.
This doesn't seem to work for me. I'm slightly convinced that when I'm an hour away from dying, I won't have to care about anything anymore very soon.

It just seems to make me care even less. I wouldn't be surprised if the new techno-oligarchs have similar or even worse wiring.

The review complains about exhaustive enumeration, but (sorry) sampling is required for analysis.

And the "Tolstoy" problem was expressed (better?) in Socrates' time via Ecclesiastes (~ even kingdoms turn to dust) and Silenus (~ better not to be born), the dual perils of materialism and spirituality.

So it's pretty hard to tell if a review of a book about dialogs about Socrates hasn't lost all connection to relevance, but there's good reason to believe that understanding Socrates now is relevant, and the book might help.

Philosophy is just taking responsibility for our unavoidable phenomenological fictions to avoid the delusions and violence of their blind spots and projections -- good science and good ethics. The alternative is not science or realpolitik but obliviousness (which is nevertheless often required in the practice of both).

Socrates as an ugly stonemason would have been ignored in Athenian society - not even given an ear, regardless of any wisdom.

But Socrates was a war hero. You can imagine how effective a strong, squat stonemason would be in a melee. In the midst of particularly horrible defeat and retreat, he managed to save some of the elites (and their armor/honor) by not freaking out.

Imagine how conflicted he might feel about society after seeing friends die horribly, and brutally bashing so many enemies, and then being celebrated for it.

On Socrates' return from that war, he meets the beautiful young Charmides, and they discuss the untranslatable virtue "sophrosyne". Think of it as the virtue appropriate to retreat and peace, by comparison to courage as the virtue of attack and war.

At the time the dialog was written, Charmides had grown up to become one of the democratic tyrants that destroyed Athens. It was the youth flocking to Socrates (for his critique of received wisdoms?) that led to Socrates' condemnation and death after his students grew up to ruin Athenian society.

Tech is experiencing a similar turn in the public mind, for many of the same reasons. Through careful analysis and opportunism, it effectively displaced scleric systems, but with exploitative ones beyond society's control.

There's as much value to be saved in a calm peace as to be taken in deploying every new weapon as soon as it's available. But there seem to be far fewer such leaders.

I had to do a double take, I thought this was a side project of the head of Amnesty International, but no, just similar names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnès_Callamard
A good reminder that philosophy can be enjoyable. Shout out to Stephen West and his wonderfully dense and thought provoking Philosophize This! podcasts. The Socrates episode is number 3 and he was still working things out, but excellent nonetheless.

https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/socrates-98cdl?rq=S...

> The thrust of the book is that, in the figure of Socrates, we can find a way through that Tolstoy couldn’t

It's ironic that she holds up Socrates, a man who was murdered by his own fellow citizens, as a figure who managed to "find a way through".

wonder what socrates would think about dating his students - oh wait

http://web.archive.org/web/20250111022130/https://www.newyor...

Okay, irrelevant. What's next?
life is complicated.