You've mentioned experimental philosophy in a few of your posts, and I was wondering if you had a take on it. A few friends and I got into a FB discussion on it when someone posted this The upshot of our discussion was that we couldn't really determine how experimental philosophy was different than perhaps just a closer relationship between psychology and philosophy (not to say that would be a bad thing.) What do you think?

My good friend Peter—whose blog everyone should read—has already commented on this a little, but I guess I’ll throw my two cents in.

I don’t know much about experimental philosophy, but from what I have read it seems to me like a lot of scholarship in the field is based on the study of how we form certain beliefs. I was initially skeptical that these studies could be called philosophy, because it seemed more like straightforward psychology.

But psychology has always had some obvious utility for philosophers—and, in fact, Merleau-Ponty used a psychological case study to refute the orthodox Cartesian dualism of his French existentialist colleagues—so the more I think about it, the more it seems worthwhile for individuals trained in both fields to collaborate closely.

There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: