Relevancy test for Philosophy

Paul Graham is a computer programmer and author and thinker about the world iof the web. He wrote an interesting essay, “How to do Philosophy,” about his own interest in philosophy, philosophy’s history as he sees it, and its possibilities. He has some harsh things to say about a lot of traditional philosophy, but they’re worth mulling over. His proposal for philosophy:

I propose we try again, but that we use that heretofore despised criterion, applicability, as a guide to keep us from wondering off into a swamp of abstractions. Instead of trying to answer the question:

What are the most general truths?

let’s try to answer the question

Of all the useful things we can say, which are the most general?

The test of utility I propose is whether we cause people who read what we’ve written to do anything differently afterward. Knowing we have to give definite (if implicit) advice will keep us from straying beyond the resolution of the words we’re using.

The brain’s “kluges”

“Why are we as a species so often so desperately poor at achieving our goals? If we are, as the selfish-gene theory would have it, organisms that exist only to serve the interests of our genes, why do we waste so much of our time doing things that are not, in any obvious way, remotely in the interest of our genes? How can one explain, for example, why a busy undergraduate would spend four weeks playing “Halo 3″ rather than studying for his exams?”

Read more here.