Gangster Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://blog.apaonline.org/2025/11/03/gangster-philosophers-and-actual-philosophers/?amp=1

Is your philosophy "Examined"?

[Steve H]

I've long wondered what actual use academic philosophy is, beyond giving pretentious pseudo-intellectuals on online forums something to pontificate about.

[Nearly Sane]

https://blog.apaonline.org/2025/11/03/gangster-philosophers-and-actual-philosophers/?amp=1

Is your philosophy "Examined"?

I've read this a few times because I thought it had to be missing something and I may well still.be missing some stuff but it feels a bit like a retreat of the unexplained life is not worth living with gangster thrown in to make it edgy. I would suggest that he misses a trick in not making gangster philosophy the 'right' one in his opinion as it sounds cool, sort of like freakonomics or street epistemology.


Rather like the Socratic saw thaat I suggested he is echoing, I am left worried that he might put his back out with the vigorous clapping of it he does.

I think it's main thrust is trying to say that science can't answer all questions but that's hidden behind the window dressing to make the article sound 'down wit it'. On that part I agree, but he implies through his Damascene conversion to academ8c philosophy that it dies and yet there is no demonstration of that.

I think i am more on the side of the gangsters here, which was an attempt to poison the well, in that whatever gets you through the day is most important.

To go back to the unexplained life line, what a load of self congratulatory guff.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've read this a few times because I thought it had to be missing something and I may well still.be missing some stuff but it feels a bit like a retreat of the unexplained life is not worth living with gangster thrown in to make it edgy. I would suggest that he misses a trick in not making gangster philosophy the 'right' one in his opinion as it sounds cool, sort of like freakonomics or street epistemology.


Rather like the Socratic saw thaat I suggested he is echoing, I am left worried that he might put his back out with the vigorous clapping of it he does.

I think it's main thrust is trying to say that science can't answer all questions but that's hidden behind the window dressing to make the article sound 'down wit it'. On that part I agree, but he implies through his Damascene conversion to academ8c philosophy that it dies and yet there is no demonstration of that.

I think i am more on the side of the gangsters here, which was an attempt to poison the well, in that whatever gets you through the day is most important.

To go back to the unexplained life line, what a load of self congratulatory guff.

My takeaways were that he was criticising Scientism. A current philosophy that "feels" so right it's entrenched but and maybe because of that has not had proper philosophical scrutiny.
Is that because it wouldn't stand scrutiny as is the case of what he describes as Gangster Philosophy.

I think it was Bertrand Russell who himself had felt the ontological argument was wrong, examined it and on doing so  and for a time, reasoned that it was sound, Russell said something like contemporary people "feel" the ontological argument is wrong but don't quite know where it is wrong.

And that I move is the status of many of the criticisms and claims of scientism that are felt to be right but haven't reasonably established their reasonableness.

[Nearly Sane]

My takeaways were that he was criticising Scientism. A current philosophy that "feels" so right it's entrenched but and maybe because of that has not had proper philosophical scrutiny.
Is that because it wouldn't stand scrutiny as is the case of what he describes as Gangster Philosophy.

I think it was Bertrand Russell who himself had felt the ontological argument was wrong, examined it and on doing so  and for a time, reasoned that it was sound, Russell said something like contemporary people "feel" the ontological argument is wrong but don't quite know where it is wrong.

And that I move is the status of many of the criticisms and claims of scientism that are felt to be right but haven't reasonably established their reasonableness.

Which is why the window dressing that he's put on it gets in the way. If that really is the case he want to make it would be better to be clearer, and to make the case that this view of scoentism exists and is worth countering, and counter it. It's a shallow article.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is why the window dressing that he's put on it gets in the way. If that really is the case he want to make it would be better to be clearer, and to make the case that this view of scoentism exists and is worth countering, and counter it. It's a shallow article.

Yes, as you point out he's in danger of turning his readership off.

I wonder if adding "edge" isn't itself part of the general felt but not reasoned philosophy of internet posting.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, as you point out he's in danger of turning his readership off.

I wonder if adding "edge" isn't itself part of the general felt but not reasoned philosophy of internet posting.

See my comments on freakonomics and street epistemology.

It's also not really dealing with a substantial problem. And it definitely doesn't take an 'examined philosophy' to wonder if there are writing questions beyond the purview of science. Indeed I would have thought that that is a near universal belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See my comments on freakonomics and street epistemology.

It's also not really dealing with a substantial problem. And it definitely doesn't take an 'examined philosophy' to wonder if there are writing questions beyond the purview of science. Indeed I would have thought that that is a near universal belief.

I reread your comments on freakonomics and street epistemology.

How do you feel you are on the side of the gangsters?

[Nearly Sane]

I reread your comments on freakonomics and street epistemology.

How do you feel you are on the side of the gangsters?

Am I? He hasn't made his case. Indeed it's not even clear to me other than science probably can't answer every question what his case means. He doesn't make clear what the examined philosophy means, and therefore though he doesn't make the case for the self congratulatory guff about how good his thinking is, it would be impossible to do so with the lack of definition
.

[Steve H]

Scientism.

Sigh...

I think it was Bertrand Russell who himself had felt the ontological argument was wrong, examined it and on doing so  and for a time, reasoned that it was sound, Russell said something like contemporary people "feel" the ontological argument is wrong but don't quite know where it is wrong.

What's wrong with the ontological argument is perfectly simple - it uses an a priori argument to try to prove the real  existence of something. It has other faults, as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sigh...What's wrong with the ontological argument is perfectly simple - it uses an a priori argument to try to prove the real  existence of something. It has other faults, as well.

You what?