Can the pratictionner of philosophy be dogmatic ?

Nzomigni May 05, 2021 at 18:40 1975 views 6 comments

I spotted a pattern. When someone criticize a major philosophical view, the persons defending this view could says that it's absurd to question this view.
When a person propose another view, they may say that the view is self-evidently absurd and must be rejected.
As such thoses holds this philosophical view claim to be right by virtue of being the "obvious" right choice, a "obvious" right choice that cannot be criticized without the critics being accused of being absurd.
So it would seems that part of the practice of phlosophy would involve a sort of "emotional blackmail".
If you looked for a properly justifyied beliefs amongst philosophies, what would last ?
I'm not saying that philosophy or any philosophical view is "useless". I even think that philosophy as a whole is probably useful. I only want to remind that theorically the default position is "skepticism" and that more epistemic humility could be used in arguments.

Comments (6)

Heracloitus May 05, 2021 at 18:48 #531874 0 likes

No, people are dogmatic.

Nzomigni May 05, 2021 at 18:50 #531877 0 likes

Reply to emancipate Yes, the discipline itself cannot be dogmatic, but who represents it theorically can

TheMadFool May 05, 2021 at 19:35 #531900 0 likes

Reply to Nzomigni The philosophical ideal, best-case scenario, would be to keep dogmatism (insisting what you say is the truth) at bay, engage in philosophical debate only to pursue truths that inhere to the topic being discussed and if that isn't possible, usually isn't, assume scout-mode and just explore ideas.

It may appear as if philosophers are being dogmatic when they cross swords with each other but they're most assuredly not committing that grave error. Don't judge a book by its cover.

Manuel May 05, 2021 at 19:55 #531907 0 likes

Reply to Nzomigni

I think this is a good point in general.

Nevertheless if you spend a considerable amount of time developing a certain view, it should take an enormous amount of evidence to show why you are wrong.

After all who are we to deny in someone who believes in The Flying Spaghetti Monster after much deliberation? We have to establish some epistemic boundaries.

There's humility and there's limited time to attempt to come up with the best answer you can, given who you are. We're not all Bertrand Russell.

So it's a fine line.

180 Proof May 05, 2021 at 23:13 #531959 0 likes

Reply to Nzomigni If one refuses to correct a position one holds that has been validly demonstrated to contain false assumptions, fallacious arguments, vague or indefinite terms, patently nonsensical sentences, and the like, and furthermore one insists the position is true, all the while ignoring – not addressing – the objections to that position, then one is incorrigibly dogmatic. Simply put, I understand philosophy as reasoning to the most probative (best formulated) questions and not 'reasoning from' less-than-defensible assumptions or unquestionable positions. Defending one's position under critical, or dialectical, cross-examination is to be expected, even encouraged, and unwillingness to do so via rhetorical evasions, ad hockery, smug self-certitude, etc typifies a dogmatic (auto/theo-cratic) mindset.

I only want to remind that theorically the default position is "skepticism" and that more epistemic humility could be used in arguments.

Agreed – along with a scrupulous application of the 'principle of charity' too.

_db May 05, 2021 at 23:37 #531972 0 likes

Quoting Nzomigni

Can the pratictionner of philosophy be dogmatic ?

NO, and there is NOTHING you can say to persuade me otherwise.