Which other field produces the best philosophers?

[Advocate]

I'm going to say history off the top of my head. Certainly not physics or psychology.

[commonsense]

Stand-up comics.

[PeteJ]

Other than what?

I find physicists are often braver and better thinkers than university philosophers. Schrodinger and Paul Davies are among my favourites. The standard in physics has dropped with the passing of the quantum pioneers but the education system is much narrower these days.

Historians tend to interested in history, social and economic change, evolution of ideas and so forth. and I cannot think of one who has written anything good on metaphysics thus with real import for philosophy.

Not sure about psychology, but William James comes to mind. In 'scientific consciousness studies' all the disciplines tend to overlap.

[FlashDangerpants]

Good grief, there's more to philosophy than metaphysics. Lots of subjects have their own "philosophy of.." beyond the sciences, if you see little discussion of them between philosophers that generally means they are doing their own philosophy of their subject in house, with or without (usually with though) reference to various philosophers that we would recognise.

Historians handle their own philosophy of history under the general heading of historiagraphy. Not gonna lie, I jumped ship on History at university because I found the reasoning given for most arguments in that matter entirely specious and apparently I have issues containing my sarcastic impulses that were costing me grades. Nonetheless, some of it is very good, although I still think even the good bits are probably supported by weak argument if you look too closely.

Macroeconomics is deeply philosophical though, compared to microeconomics which is sort-of-science. Philosophers writing on the subject of capitalism/globalism tend to be deeply unsophisticated error strewn junk, even those who are obsessed to the point that you would expect them to learn a little about the topic (read any of D63's garbage posts about Deleuze to see what I am on about), while philosophers of conservative tradition who irrationally equate debt with dishonour are really no better.

Political science/political theory gives us writers like de Tocqueville, Frantz Fanon, Machiavelli and Hannah Arendt who are all, again, pretty impressive philosophers of their subjects. I remember this forum hosting one, extremely stupid conversation about Fanon, and references to de Tocqueville are all apparently just cadged from some quote to meme generator without any consideration being given.

I can't name any names in the subject of Jurisprudence becasue that's waaaaay out of my fields of interest, but anyone talented in the subject would be aghast with the total shit that we have in our ethics subs here.

If you want see some good philosophy of a subject, then I would recommend "Money" by Eric Lonergan, and "On History" by Eric Hobsbawm.

[Impenitent]

-Imp

[Belinda]

History and anthropology of ideas.