Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Question

Mod Moved Comments To Chat
Corrected 1st sentence quote
Source Link
Scott Rowe
Scott Rowe
  • 1.6k
  • 1
  • 10
  • 21

I'm an Engineer, and a Computer Programmer, but. But I digressrepeat myself... For me, my life and breath is getting to the bottom of complex things and rendering an explanation or instantiation (for programs) that is, "As simple as possible, but not simpler", as the famous guy said.

Often you might have seen my comments urging a perspective that discards essentially the entire history on a question or idea in favor of something that seems, to my perhaps naive view, as solving the issue with less trouble and making eminently more sense. I wonder if this would be better in general?

When I see debates about Kant and Hume and phenomenalism and so on, I always fume, why can't we think for ourselves? (See how that rhymes?) Why must we go back to Aristotle every morning and retrace all our steps again by nightfall, only to unravel it and start again the next day? What suitor are we waiting for?

If we can come up with an answer to a question which solves it more simply, isn't that still Philosophy, or am I being some kind of fascist? I am sure I could be very wrong in my approach.

I'm an Engineer, and a Computer Programmer, but I digress... For me, my life and breath is getting to the bottom of complex things and rendering an explanation or instantiation (for programs) that is, "As simple as possible, but not simpler", as the famous guy said.

Often you might have seen my comments urging a perspective that discards essentially the entire history on a question or idea in favor of something that seems, to my perhaps naive view, as solving the issue with less trouble and making eminently more sense. I wonder if this would be better in general?

When I see debates about Kant and Hume and phenomenalism and so on, I always fume, why can't we think for ourselves? (See how that rhymes?) Why must we go back to Aristotle every morning and retrace all our steps again by nightfall, only to unravel it and start again the next day? What suitor are we waiting for?

If we can come up with an answer to a question which solves it more simply, isn't that still Philosophy, or am I being some kind of fascist? I am sure I could be very wrong in my approach.

I'm an Engineer, and a Computer Programmer. But I repeat myself... For me, my life and breath is getting to the bottom of complex things and rendering an explanation or instantiation (for programs) that is, "As simple as possible, but not simpler", as the famous guy said.

Often you might have seen my comments urging a perspective that discards essentially the entire history on a question or idea in favor of something that seems, to my perhaps naive view, as solving the issue with less trouble and making eminently more sense. I wonder if this would be better in general?

When I see debates about Kant and Hume and phenomenalism and so on, I always fume, why can't we think for ourselves? (See how that rhymes?) Why must we go back to Aristotle every morning and retrace all our steps again by nightfall, only to unravel it and start again the next day? What suitor are we waiting for?

If we can come up with an answer to a question which solves it more simply, isn't that still Philosophy, or am I being some kind of fascist? I am sure I could be very wrong in my approach.

Became Hot Network Question
Source Link
Scott Rowe
Scott Rowe
  • 1.6k
  • 1
  • 10
  • 21

Should reducing and simplifying explanations be a core aspect of Philosophical practice?

I'm an Engineer, and a Computer Programmer, but I digress... For me, my life and breath is getting to the bottom of complex things and rendering an explanation or instantiation (for programs) that is, "As simple as possible, but not simpler", as the famous guy said.

Often you might have seen my comments urging a perspective that discards essentially the entire history on a question or idea in favor of something that seems, to my perhaps naive view, as solving the issue with less trouble and making eminently more sense. I wonder if this would be better in general?

When I see debates about Kant and Hume and phenomenalism and so on, I always fume, why can't we think for ourselves? (See how that rhymes?) Why must we go back to Aristotle every morning and retrace all our steps again by nightfall, only to unravel it and start again the next day? What suitor are we waiting for?

If we can come up with an answer to a question which solves it more simply, isn't that still Philosophy, or am I being some kind of fascist? I am sure I could be very wrong in my approach.