Just picking one of the many hilariously patronising statements in the essay, the author says "we may be able to do better" than the great philosophers by, in effect, making a big list of things that are true in general, and cause people to act differently.
How do we measure truth? Who decides? What happens when the people who decide become political? What if someone is wrong? What if an action that you thought was true causes someone to do something morally wrong? What is morally wrong?
What if others want to talk about things that aren't on this list? Do you stop them? Are they wasting their time if they ask other questions?
Maybe people in philosophy are looking at things now that will only make sense to others in decades to come. That happens to be my opinion. It is worth studying anything somebody gives their life to very carefully before writing it off as a "swamp of abstractions".
I am part of a micro social network - a conversation group on WhatsApp on the iPhone. The name of the group changes occasionally but the members stay the same, mostly close friends and family, and everybody understands how it works. It would probably feel different if we tried to do it on Path or FamilyLeaf, or whatever other service pops up to commoditise the experience or connecting with people close to you. I wondered how long it would take for companies to arise out of this natural phenomenon, as Facebook becomes a hardened institution. I've been convinced for a while that new social networks will be smaller, yet more meaningful. I guess I need to look for the next move for my killer startup.
I think perhaps you got caught up in the theme (as you see it) and didn't notice the intensely irreverent humour in the writing. I found it to be highly amusing and original. Especially the part about arguments in the home between a litigator and a magazine editor - the wife always wins.
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3s458i/
Just picking one of the many hilariously patronising statements in the essay, the author says "we may be able to do better" than the great philosophers by, in effect, making a big list of things that are true in general, and cause people to act differently.
How do we measure truth? Who decides? What happens when the people who decide become political? What if someone is wrong? What if an action that you thought was true causes someone to do something morally wrong? What is morally wrong?
What if others want to talk about things that aren't on this list? Do you stop them? Are they wasting their time if they ask other questions?
Maybe people in philosophy are looking at things now that will only make sense to others in decades to come. That happens to be my opinion. It is worth studying anything somebody gives their life to very carefully before writing it off as a "swamp of abstractions".