What he says is true enough, so why can’t he identify some of the honest science based fundamentals and how they enlarge our perception of the world and ourselves. As it is, all Dennett’s is sharing is platitudes.
For instance, thinkers such as Chalmers thinks nature owes him an explanation, examine his thinking and it’s based on Theological foundations, with all those western assumptions about our superiority, that blind them to the depth of understanding to be found within Earth’s Evolution and her biology, including us hominids.
In the land of what if:
Philosophical tenet #1:
Ours is to figure it out and appreciate - not to presume to define it!
Philosophical challenge - what is the most fundamental observation regarding our human condition?:
“The Physical Reality (& biology) ~ Human Mind divide”
That rearranges one’s relation with the knowledge one possess and the body/brain our mind is confined within. It also profoundly enlarges one’s intellectual horizons and inner appreciation - both lead to more engaged, aware, and constructive living.
I am an evolved biological sensing creature, a filament in the pageant of Earth’s evolution.
I am the product of nearly half a billion years of Earth’s uninterrupted generations of research and development and reproduction.
My Body/Brain is the cumulative product of Earth’s evolutionary processes;
My Mind is the cumulative product of my Body/Brain interacting with my world (interior & exterior);
My God(s) along with all of my other thoughts are the product of my Mind.
I appreciate and respect the Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide(with its many cascading implications) and believe it’s about the most fundamental observation we can make regarding our human condition and it is worth ruminating on since all else proceeds from there.
I respect and appreciate serious science as our best chance to understand ourselves and the Earth that sustains us. I also believe that the science of our Earth/biology/evolution and deep time offer opportunities for spiritual revelations, challenges and resolutions well beyond what our self-created ego-driven religions can offer.
For instance, as in a deeper appreciation for the reality of being a creature with half a billion years of physical experience under my hood, so to speak - and how it has transformed my already extensive appreciation for infants, particularly the <100 day old crowd, while it’s all still about that little seedling not just growing into its adult form, but also actively discovering itself in the process, experiencing and transforming and growing its ego, . . . (snip, I’ll save this for its own thread.)
'nough said.
Because it’s just a list. It’s not the only thing he’s ever done
Please try to explain that.
I mean it is not even clear who’s list you are referring to?
It’s in the title. “The 4 biggest ideas”. He’s not “sharing platitudes”, he’s introducing the ideas. You ask for a “deeper appreciation” from everything. Dennet has lifetime body of work. Go read some of it.
I have read some and listened to plenty, and sure there are many right-on moments. But in the end they add up to the same merry-go-round. In large part smart people trying to impress each other with words. I agree Dennett outsmarts most others.
Still, where are the hooks that matter?
What matters?
For me that would be hooks to help us understanding ourselves, our body, and its realistic rational place in this world.
To better appreciate (that would be a deep down in your gut understanding) of how you fit in with the rest of Earth’s animal kingdom.
To know enough to be at peace with one’s coming death, and one’s place in the universe.
For you, I don’t know what matters - though I have an impression you love learning from books and immersing yourself in human thought. For me that has alway been an adjunct to better understanding what I observe and feel.
I’m a natural born philosopher. That’s why I’ve come to appreciate what it means to understand the human mind ~ physical reality divide. And I’ve build up my understanding from there, no need for those metaphysical skyhooks.
You seem to think I’m attacking or disputing Dennett, when I actually have a great deal of respect for his thoughts and they have helped me make some of my connections. He’s one of the least silly philosophers I’m familiar with. I am disappointed that he never came up with straight forward formulation that people could grasp and do something with.
But I am disappoint that with all he learned and wrote and spoke, he didn’t go the last few yards to connect the dots.
That I can do something with, I know because it’s made a substantive change in me and my understanding, and my ability to hang onto my sanity in this utterly insane dystopian world - we’ve created for ourselves and that promises to get even weirder and uglier before the power outages finally start putting an end to the hubristic insanity of ultimate weapons, rockets, computing, gluttony, human hubris.
I was hoping I wouldn’t have to break this down and explain why I put it up with you in mind. I was hoping you’d simply say, “Exactly, that’s what I’ve been saying.” But you didn’t, so,
His first idea is just an introduction of philosophy. He thinks the job of philosophers should be to explain how things actually work.
It’s what he says he was interested in from the time he was little. You call yourself a natural born philosopher, he calls himself and “engineer at heart” and says that’s a good attitude to have for a philosopher. So, pretty close from the start.
Dennet says, learn about the world, learn about the sciences. I think you’ve said that. He notes this has become more prevalent and helping to make philosophy a more serious endeavor.
The graphic for his next of the four ideas links Classical Philosophy directly to Evolutionary Theory. Dennet recalls his fellow philosophy students thinking it was bizarre that he was interested in the physiological questions he had about the human body. He went to the school’s medical library and looked up how the nervous system works. He sees this as the key to how things fit together. Is this not something you keep saying?
He is amazed that there are philosophers still today are ignorant of Evolutionary Theory. At 5:50 he points to the error of relying on Socrates. That is, he agrees with you on what we should be doing and is frustrated that others are not doing it.
That you ask “what matters” about this proves to me that you are interested only in your own words. This is so close to your body/brain/mind ideas and your thoughts on what is wrong with philosophers today. You have demonstrated that there is nothing that anyone else could say that would result in anything other than you reposting your answer to “Who Am I?”
You seem to think I’m attacking or disputing Dennett, when I actually have a great deal of respect for his thoughts and they have helped me make some of my connections. He’s one of the least silly philosophers I’m familiar with.
I am disappointed that he never came up with straight forward formulation that people could grasp and do something with. (after all people need a story, a plot line to build on)
But I am disappoint that with all he learned and wrote and spoke, he didn’t go the last few yards to connect the dots.
“So close” isn’t good enough.
Look at the world the 20th century brain trust helped us fall into. We trashed our own Constitution, our institutions are in a free fall and mental health crisis is worse than ever, and bound to get much worse …
Where do you get off insisting these people, even the best of them is beyond reproach?
No one is beyond reproach. I can work with anyone. If we all work alone, we fail.