Most of the things I would call "philosophy" are in the main section "Topics of Social Importance". This section will be for discussions that probably wouldn't be as interesting to a general audience.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html
- The best single resource I discovered while studying philosophy in college was the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I frequently raved about it to classmates and teachers. For any given topic I was curious about, it usually offered a much more in-depth treatment of a subject than I could find anywhere else, especially in-class discussion.
- That being said, it is not written for the casual reader. You may need to put in some work to understand a given section.
Important Foreword:
- it seems to me that a lot of philosophical debates end up boiling down to semantics. that is to say, a lot of the ideas people talk about ("truth", "justice", "love") are just words people use to refer to fuzzy things that don't have clear borders; people then argue about whether X qualifies as one of those words (based on their intuitions about the word in other situations) and there's no way to settle the debate.
- here's BF Skinner saying what seems to me to be a very similar point:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47tNyyqQoSU&t=6m52s
Misc Links:
Scott Aaronson (MIT EE/CS Prof) on Philosophical Progress
http://intelligence.org/2013/12/13/aaronson/
As for the “social value” of philosophy, I suppose there are a few things to say. [...] [T]he Enlightenment seems like a pretty big philosophical success story. Philosophers like Locke and Spinoza directly influenced statesmen like Thomas Jefferson, in ways you don’t have to squint to see.
whenever it’s been possible to make definite progress on ancient philosophical problems, such progress has almost always involved a [kind of] “bait-and-switch.” In other words: one replaces an unanswerable philosophical riddle Q by a “merely” scientific or mathematical question Q′, which captures part of what people have wanted to know when they’ve asked Q. Then, with luck, one solves Q′.
Of course, even if Q′ is solved, centuries later philosophers might still be debating the exact relation between Q and Q′! And further exploration might lead to other scientific or mathematical questions — Q′′, Q′′′, and so on — which capture aspects of Q that Q′ left untouched. But from my perspective, this process of “breaking off” answerable parts of unanswerable riddles, then trying to answer those parts, is the closest thing to philosophical progress that there is.
…A good replacement question Q′ should satisfy two properties: (a) Q′ should capture some aspect of the original question Q — so that an answer to Q′ would be hard to ignore in any subsequent discussion of Q, [and] (b) Q′ should be precise enough that one can see what it would mean to make progress on Q′: what experiments one would need to do, what theorems one would need to prove, etc.
Q: What is the Meaning of Life?
- other ways of phrasing it: "For what ultimate purpose am I here?", "Why does the universe exist?"
- it seems to me that this question is a result of humans extending human concepts to things that shouldn't be thought of in human terms; it's anthropomorphism applied to the entire universe instead of to just a tree or a dog. here's a similar example: when i was a young kid i would sometimes cry at the thought of throwing away toys because i would imagine what it would be like to be a conscious toy and be thrown away, and I felt guilty about treating the toy so "badly". This was me applying a useful human tendency (compassion, placing myself in the position of another) to an arguably inappropriate target (a toy), and feeling bad as a result. I think humans have a natural tendency to try to understand the motivations behind other humans' or animals' behaviors, and I think that this "Meaning of Life" question is a result of applying this tendency to an inappropriate target (the Universe).
- i think this is a bad way of thinking about life; thinking about life like this has made me feel depressed in the past and i've seen it make other people depressed [Q: Why does it make people get depressed? A: Maybe because it makes people feel unimportant, and people feel depressed when they feel unimportant.]
- it seems to me that you do not need to resolve this question to be happy; it's a big red herring (in any case, atm i think the answer i describe above is the true one). just focus on meeting your needs (eat well, sleep well, spend a lot of time with people you like, have those people make you feel important, keep yourself busy/occupied/distracted). i suspect when a lot of people say that they've found the answer to this question, they've really just found something to focus their effort on and feel important about (their family, their work, etc.).
- marty nemko's thoughts on the meaning of life (with a huge tangent on reverse discrimination). note that he doesn't seem very happy in the article; i think it's because he hasn't met other needs, rather than any philosophical problem figuring out what the meaning of life is:
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/what ... ife_id1306
Tim Ferriss on the meaning of life, taken from the 4-Hour Workweek:
In the process of searching for a new focus [for your life], it is almost inevitable that the "big" questions will creep in. There is pressure from pseudophilosophers everywhere to cast aside the impertinent and answer the eternal. Two popular examples are "What is the meaning of life?" and "What is the point of it all?" There are many more, ranging from the introspective to the ontological, but I have one answer for almost all of them--I don't answer them at all. I'm no nihilist. In fact, I've spent more than a decade investigating the mind and concept of meaning, a quest that has taken me from the neuroscience laboratories of top universities to the halls of religious institutions worldwide. The conclusion after it all is surprising. I am 100% convinced that most big questions we feel compelled to face--handed down through centuries of overthinking and mistranslation--use terms so undefined as to make attempting to answer them a complete waste of time. This isn't depressing. It's liberating. Consider the question of questions: What is the meaning of life? If pressed, I have but one response: It is the characteristic state or condition of a living organism. "But that's just a definition," the questioner will retort, "that's not what I mean at all." What do you mean, then? Until the question is clear--each term in it defined--there is no point in answering it. The "meaning" of "life" question is unanswerable without further elaboration.
[Source: The 4-Hour Workweek, pp291-292]
I think Ferriss has a good point, but I also think he's kind of dodging the question by not taking the further step of explaining to the questioner exactly what the questioner is curious about and what can be known about that curiosity.
Q: Should people pursue truth above all other considerations?
Probably not
Q: What should I do? How should I behave?
Q: What can a person really ever know for sure? How do I know I'm not in the Matrix?
FYI, in case you're interested: Philosophy has a division called "epistemology" that deals with this question.