Metaphilosophy: What makes a good philosophy?

I believe David Chalmers wrote a book related to that called Constructing the World. He focuses on the idea of scrutability where you start off with a few basic assumptions and build up your metaphysics.

Quoting A Seagull

What makes for a good philosophy?

True statements.

Philosophy is the search for wisdom, which is the ability to discern superior from inferior answers to questions. A good philosophy is thus one that provides such an ability.

......cautioning reason against exceeding its proper bounds, even while it presumes its own warrant for doing just that.

Logic.

Logic may be defined as the branch of philosophy that reflects upon the nature of thinking, or more specifically reasoning, itself.

Logic is perhaps the most fundamental branch of philosophy. All branches employ thinking; whether this thinking is correct or not will depend upon whether it is in accord with the laws of logic.

In this sense, religion and politics are bad philosophy. Science would be good philosophy.

To the extent that "good" refers to an optimal state of mind (or well-being), I think a "good philosophy" consists in reflective exercises for aligning one's expectations - minimizing one's frustration/distress - with the real (i.e. ineluctable contingency ... that exposes the insufficiency, despite the indispensability, of reasoning). 'Groundless, or idle, dis/beliefs & doubts' and 'pseudo-questions' and 'misdefined problems' are tracked, and thereby filtered-out, in order for one to help (or as might Witty say, remind) oneself to avoid becoming captive to - intellectually (ideologically?) biased, or blinded, by - them.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Logic may be defined as the branch of philosophy that reflects upon the nature of thinking, or more specifically reasoning, itself.

Logic is concerned with the nature of reasoning, i.e., correct reasoning as opposed to incorrect reasoning. The nature of thinking is much broader in scope than logic.

Quoting Harry Hindu

In this sense, religion and politics are bad philosophy. Science would be good philosophy.

There can be good and bad reasoning within any subject, including science. You can't just say that science equals good philosophy. It depends on the subject matter, and the arguments put forth.

Quoting Marchesk

believe David Chalmers wrote a book related to that called Constructing the World. He focuses on the idea of scrutability where you start off with a few basic assumptions and build up your metaphysics.

I think the idea of starting with a few basic assumptions and building from there is a good strategy. But how do you then justify the assumptions?

I had a brief look at Chalmers' book. The trouble is that he starts with assumptions about truth that seem to be circular, eg 'A truth is a true statement'. IMO truth is a goal or an end point, and not a starting point.

Quoting creativesoul

What makes for a good philosophy? — A Seagull
True statements.

Any philosophy can make a claim to truth. It does not merit as being a distinguishing feature of a good philosophy.

Quoting Pfhorrest

Philosophy is the search for wisdom, which is the ability to discern superior from inferior answers to questions. A good philosophy is thus one that provides such an ability.

How do you distinguish superior answers from inferior ones?

Do you consider that your answer to the question 'What makes a good philosophy' to be a superior one?

Reply to A Seagull

So you think false statements are good philosophy?

Quoting Harry Hindu

Logic.

Logic may be defined as the branch of philosophy that reflects upon the nature of thinking, or more specifically reasoning, itself.

I agree that logic is an essential part of a good philosophy, it specifies how inferences can be made.

But the philosophy of logic is not logic itself. So what is logic?

Quoting creativesoul

So you think false statements are good philosophy?

I said what I said.

You said 'a claim to truth'...

I said true statements.

Not all claims to truth are true. All true statements are. So, are you saying that being true is not necessary for good philosophy?

I agree with what you said... that a claim to truth is not enough.

The problem is that that does not address what I said.

Quoting A Seagull

How do you distinguish superior answers from inferior ones?

That is the big question that all philosophical questions are in service of. I wrote 80,000 words on that that I’m not gonna retype here.

Quoting A Seagull

Do you consider that your answer to the question 'What makes a good philosophy' to be a superior one?

Yes.

Quoting A Seagull

What makes for a good philosophy?

Nihilism. That should be your starting point. Then evaluate all claims using logic/reason until you are convinced. Then continuously challenge those convictions until you ultimately return to....Nihilism. Wash, rinse, repeat, die.

Quoting Pfhorrest

Do you consider that your answer to the question 'What makes a good philosophy' to be a superior one? — A Seagull
Yes.

Well that makes one of you.

Quoting Sam26

Logic may be defined as the branch of philosophy that reflects upon the nature of thinking, or more specifically reasoning, itself.
— Harry Hindu

Logic is concerned with the nature of reasoning, i.e., correct reasoning as opposed to incorrect reasoning. The nature of thinking is much broader in scope than logic.

That's why I said, more specifically reasoning.

Quoting Sam26

There can be good and bad reasoning within any subject, including science. You can't just say that science equals good philosophy. It depends on the subject matter, and the arguments that are put forth.

If there was bad reasoning involved, it wasn't science that was being done. Maybe you're thinking of pseudoscience.

Quoting A Seagull

I agree that logic is an essential part of a good philosophy, it specifies how inferences can be made.

But the philosophy of logic is not logic itself. So what is logic?

I didn't say philosophy of logic was a good or bad philosophy. I said that logic is what determines what is good philosophy or not. Logic is typically lacking in religious and political/ethical claims, and emotion is typically rampant within these domains, hence these are examples of engaging in bad philosophy.

Logic cannot determine what is good philosophy or not, because logic is formal. It has no material concepts and philosophy typically does. It can never say anything about the validity of these concepts, it can at best trace whether the steps made in reasoning with these concepts are valid. However, that says nothing about the nature of the premises. A = A does not make a philosophy, no matter the relevance of the principle of identity.

A lot of philosophy consists of sharpening and determining your questions in order to make them better answerable. That also has to be done with your question. What are your assumptions? Apparently that there should be a way to distinguish between good and bad philosophy by way of some first principle with which you may discern the truth of philosophical statements. What you then engaging is the branch of metaphysics, or ' first philosophy'. In its absolute form, as a search from some criterion of immutable context independent truth it has been eradicated by Kant. Hence different routes to the question of ' good philosophy' have been tried, for instance the existential one taken by 180 Proof. (Nice to see you by the way!)

I myself take a historical approach and see philosophy as an elucidation of questions and concepts, opening up new ways of giving meaning to the world.

True statements.

The ability to take proper account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our report/account of it.

Existential dependency.

Elemental constituency.

Having a good grasp upon thought, belief, truth, and meaning, including how they emerge onto the world stage in terms of their elemental constituency and existential dependency.

That seems exhaustive.

Quoting Tobias

Logic cannot determine what is good philosophy or not, because logic is formal. It has no material concepts and philosophy typically does. It can never say anything about the validity of these concepts, it can at best trace whether the steps made in reasoning with these concepts are valid. However, that says nothing about the nature of the premises. A = A does not make a philosophy, no matter the relevance of the principle of identity.

Agreed:

Quoting The Codex Quaerentis: Metaphilosophy

... while philosophy and mathematics share much in common in their application of logic, they differ in that mathematical proofs merely show that if certain axioms or definitions are taken as true, then certain conclusions follow, while philosophy both does that and asserts the truth of some axioms or definitions. So while mathematics says things of the form "if [premise] then [conclusion]", philosophy says things of the form "[premise], therefore [conclusion]". Mathematics explores the abstract relations of ideas to each other without concern for the applicability of any of those ideas to any more practical matters (although applications for them are nevertheless frequently found), but philosophy is directly concerned with the practical application of the abstractions it deals with. It is not enough to merely define axiomatically some concept of "existence", "knowledge", "mind", etc, and validly expound upon the implications of that concept; it also matters if that is the correct, practically applicable concept of "existence", "knowledge", "mind", etc, that is useful for the purposes to which we want to employ that concept.

[...]

Philosophy uses the tools of mathematics and the arts, logic and rhetoric, to do the job of creating the tools of the physical and ethical sciences. It is the bridge between the more abstract disciplines and the more practical ones: as described above, an inquiry stops being science and starts being philosophy when instead of using some methods that appeal to specific contingent experiences, it begins questioning and justifying the use of such methods in a more abstract way; and that activity in turn ceases to be philosophy and becomes art or math instead when that abstraction ceases to be concerned with figuring out how to practically answer questions about what is real or what is moral, but turns instead to the structure or presentation of the ideas themselves.

Logic is a measure of consistency/coherence. Good philosophy takes more. It must also be true.

Quoting A Seagull

Is there an over-riding means of evaluating which is better than the others?

Take undeniably true statements. Use them as a means to discriminate between different philosophies.

Quoting A Seagull

What makes for a good philosophy?

Philosophy is like dancing. So asking what makes a good philosophy, is like asking what makes a good dance.

Quoting Pussycat

Philosophy is like dancing. So asking what makes a good philosophy, is like asking what makes a good dance.

OK, well what makes a good dance?

Quoting creativesoul

Logic is a measure of consistency/coherence

Well how is it measured?

Quoting creativesoul

Take undeniably true statements. Use them as a means to discriminate between different philosophies.

How do you know what statements are undeniably true? Isn’t that a philosophical question? Seems kind of circular to then base your means of discerning truth on something you discern to be true based on... what means exactly?

Quoting Tobias

... Hence different routes to the question of ' good philosophy' have been tried, for instance the existential one taken by 180 Proof. (Nice to see you by the way!)

I myself take a historical approach and see philosophy as an elucidation of questions and concepts, opening up new ways of giving meaning to the world.

:cool: Likewise, Tobias!

Quoting A Seagull

What makes for a good philosophy?

I don't know. Perhaps philosophy isn't about ideas as such for I see no real progress in that department; the philosophical enterprise resembles then a inconclusive exploratory laparotomy - the abdomen cut open, all the organs exposed, every nook and cranny probed and yet the answer to the problem eludes the surgeon as does the answer to philosophical issues eludes the philosopher. Philosophy then becomes, coextensive with any discovery possible, an exercise in sharpening language into the precision equipment, if that is even achievable, required to carry out any philosophical analysis at all.

That said, the essence of philosophy is, in true Socratic spirit, a journey of discovery of not wisdom but of our own abject ignorance. The philosopher then is the quintessential tragic hero, lured by the promise of wisdom to begin a quest to become a sage but sadly betrayed to none other than himself and his pathetic ignorance.

:smile:

Quoting Pfhorrest

Take undeniably true statements. Use them as a means to discriminate between different philosophies.
— creativesoul

How do you know what statements are undeniably true? Isn’t that a philosophical question?...

It's called one. It is a question that is placed into the category of being a philosophical one. Your question involves metacognition. Truth does not. True belief does not. Both exist prior to their namesake, as do undeniably true statements.

So, what sense does it make to ask me about the kind of questions you're asking me?

:brow:

Talking about questions is not equivalent to good philosophy. Knowing the kinds of questions one is asking is a part of good philosophy, however, not just any talk about any questions will do here.

True statements are imperative to good philosophy.

Do you agree?



There are undeniably true statements. Those are the most reliable strongest ground upon which to judge whether relevant claims are true as well, particularly when they are mutually exclusive claims.

Do you agree?



You're asking me about my knowledge regarding undeniably true statements, and then asking me what kind of question that is...

:brow:

I'm talking about true statements as though there are such things. Are you denying that there are? If so, lose the "undeniable" qualifier. It's unnecessary and may be causing confusion bearing the same name. So...


Are you denying that there are true statements?

Seems kind of circular to then base your means of discerning truth on something you discern to be true based on... what means exactly?

This is confused. It does not follow from anything I've written. It's not an accurate report of anything I've written.

I updated my criterion a bit, and it doesn't take 80,000 words.

Where is it found lacking?

A good philosophy acts as a force multiplier to thought; it forges connections between the disparate, as elaboration on world and word. A good philosophy constantly surprises, pulls one along a forceful current of thought that propels a mind from one element to the next, and leaves one hungry for more. It inspires creation in thought and serves as a launchpad to thinking otherwise, always. It refers one constantly to an elsewhere and an outside that cannot be captured within that philosophy but on which it always draws upon, augments, and edifies.

Quoting creativesoul

Are you denying that there are true statements?

Not at all. I'm denying that we can know for certain, especially prior to any philosophizing, which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones.

A good philosophy gives you a way to tell which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones.

That philosophy can't then depend on already knowing for sure which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones.

Because to know that would require the philosophy that, you say, first required that we know that.

Quoting Pfhorrest

I'm denying that we can know for certain, especially prior to any philosophizing, which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones.

I never made that claim, but could easily argue for it.

One can easily know that the statement "the cup is in the fridge" is true or not long prior to any ability to do philosophy.



Quoting Pfhorrest

A good philosophy gives you a way to tell which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones.

An understanding of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so gives you a way to tell which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones.

There is no need for philosophy here. Five year olds have such an understanding.


Good philosophy includes the strongest possible justificatory ground. True statements are such things. Do you agree?

Quoting creativesoul

An understanding of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so gives you a way to tell which statements are the true ones and which are the false ones.

There is no need for philosophy here. Five year olds have such an understanding.

An understanding of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is a kind of philosophy. I agree that five year olds often have a pretty good intuition for that kind of thing, but lots of adults forget it, and start claiming that weird things that can't be true are obviously true. Disabusing them of such notions and making sure people keep to the common sense that five year olds have takes philosophizing.

I actually make this very point myself:

Quoting The Codex Quaerentis: Introduction

I consider that general philosophical view to be a naively uncontroversial, common-sense kind of view, from which various other philosophical schools of thought deviate in different ways; and I aim to shore up and refine that common-sense view into a more rigorous form that can better withstand the temptation of such deviation.

Quoting Pfhorrest

An understanding of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is a kind of philosophy.

No, it's not. At least, not in the case currently under consideration.

I agree that five year olds often have a pretty good intuition for that kind of thing...

Invoking the notion of intuition offers no help here. Muddies the waters.

Five year olds know when "the cup is in the cupboard" is true or not. They can look for themselves. They do so in order to check and see for themselves. We can watch these events happen again and again. They do not have what it takes to do philosophy. They are not doing a kind of philosophy. They are showing a clear undeniable understanding regarding what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so.

Thus, the claim quoted at the top of this post is not true.

Quoting A Seagull

OK, well what makes a good dance?

Seeing what makes a good philosophy, well this I think is extremely difficult to do by itself, but seeing what makes a good dance, that's a lot easier. Thus by answering the latter, I believe we would be one step closer to answering the former. So what is it that characterizes a good dance, what is essential to it? I guess you need rythm; rhyme and reason. Assuming of course that some dances are better than others. But what do you think?

Quoting Pussycat

P

258

Well I have to say I like the metaphor of philosophy as a dance. Extending the metaphor Life is a dance.

Some dances are more enjoyable than others, some lives are more enjoyable than others. A good philosophy is then one that enables one to have an enjoyable life. Ultimately a philosophy is personal, it has very little to do with truth or statements, they are only useful if one wants to communicate one's philosophy.

The fundamental questions that relate to humans and nature are interpreted in different ways. Understanding the reason for this diversity requires a multi-disciplinary approach. Philosophy is not an island. Neither philosophy nor any other science can only be scrutinised in themselves. They always require investigation through the lens of other(s). Thus, it is needed to understand the reason for seemingly endless variation in philosophical approaches by taking into consideration their i.e. historical, social, cultural, psychological roots. In other words, a significant part of sorting out the jigsaw of philosophy requires us to know where they come from, the circumstances under which they emerged, the need they serve etc. Every question also has many sub-questions. Therefore, the first part is about finding out what is out there and what they want / mean. This is also to know how to deal with an enormous circle of circles. Depending on their level of strength, each individual would either continue with this journey or chooses a harbour. That point / location/ particular philosophical approach become the permanent home of the mind that cannot go on. Those who continue extract the logical nucleus out of every philosophy and gradually form a set of principles that help on the journey. Through critical thinking, open-mindedness, constant questioning, healthy scepticism, constant triangulation etc each principle would get tested until they prove to be invincible, beyond the slightest doubt. It is because the content(s) of each principle coincide perfectly with the modus operandi of life. This method also helps the individual to grow as an original thinker. Mistakes and even frustration would occur, but they do not characterise the thinker, who is able to observe the movements of his / her mind at every step of this journey. Thinking observes and thinks about itself. Being his / her own person, the thinker would develop their own words, concepts and ways of explaining things that necessarily change with more learning, The result is also the well-coordinated totalization process of open-ended body of all-round knowledge. The thinker would already be aware that every philosophy has or had a historical mission / role regardless of whether it sounds right or wrong or anywhere in between.

Quoting TheMadFool

That said, the essence of philosophy is, in true Socratic spirit, a journey of discovery of not wisdom but of our own abject ignorance. The philosopher then is the quintessential tragic hero, lured by the promise of wisdom to begin a quest to become a sage but sadly betrayed to none other than himself and his pathetic ignorance.

Well, one can still enjoy the journey.. :)

Quoting A Seagull

Well I have to say I like the metaphor of philosophy as a dance. Extending the metaphor Life is a dance.

Some dances are more enjoyable than others, some lives are more enjoyable than others. A good philosophy is then one that enables one to have an enjoyable life. Ultimately a philosophy is personal, it has very little to do with truth or statements, they are only useful if one wants to communicate one's philosophy.

Yes of course, philosophy has little to do with statements, true or false, but if one sees it that way, then they are statesmen, and not philosophers.

What sais google on statesman? "A statesman or stateswoman is usually a politician, diplomat or other notable public figure who has had a long and respected career at the national or international level". Ah yes, we should not forget about stateswomen, or we could just say statespersons - as political correctness requires it. Anyway, that sort of race of people seek acknowledgement, the more the merrier, they are also self-proclaimed truth and wisdom seekers. What do they have to do with dancers, that only want to put on a good show?

Reply to A Seagull Well, this is a self serving answer but I'd like to say that it is ad hoc, flexible and not too fussy. That tools and models from other metaphysics or approaches can be used without feeling like one is a hypocrite. I think there's a bit of (perhaps quite useful) hubris in thinking one can come up with the right ontology the right tools for all situations. That'll all be in our messy lilttle language and using metaphors and points of view coming from our motor cortex and primate brains. When we navigate our days we mix intuition, empirical study, listening to experts, deduction and a whole lot of not conscious at all tools, assumptions and problem solving approaches. We have more time when we are doing philosophy, if we do, but I still think a mixed approach suits our brains/minds and also 'the situation'.

Quoting A Seagull

Ultimately a philosophy is personal, it has very little to do with truth or statements

Is this a true statement? If not, then how would it be useful to you or anyone else? If so, then philosophy wouldn't be personal because the truth in the statement would be useful to everyone that shares the same world.

Quoting A Seagull

they are only useful if one wants to communicate one's philosophy.

They're only communicated if the communicator believes that it's "personal" insights would be useful to others, thereby making it an objective (applicable to others) philosophy, not personal or subjective.

Quoting Coben

?A Seagull Well, this is a self serving answer

Which is a self serving answer?

Quoting A Seagull

There are a variety of approaches to philosophy: realism, idealism, theiem, existentialism and so on.

Is there an over-riding means of evaluating which is better than the others?

Are they distinct or do they share a commonality which suggests they are all just minor variations of a common philosophy?

What makes for a good philosophy?

I say the purpose of philosophical discourse is to cultivate an integrative worldview suitable to inform, guide, and promote harmonious action in individuals and whole communities. Accordingly, philosophical discourse is just a special exercise of a more general sort of philosophical activity that belongs to our nature and that is ceaseless in creatures like us.

I doubt whether there is a single set of noncontroversial objective criteria according to which divergent philosophical discourses, each reasonably coherent in itself, may be evaluated. I expect that people who diverge from each other in philosophical outlook also tend to disagree on the standards by which they would assess divergent philosophical discourses.

Even so, these divergent views might be called variants of the same sort of thing, a worldview, produced by the same sort of process, philosophical activity.

I expect there may be widespread agreement among participants in this forum that values like rationality, coherence, and truth figure prominently among the criteria according to which we engage in and assess philosophical discourse.

Yes. You only need one tool to work this out, its called, "Reason". Not to be confused with "logic" which has little hope of helping you out.

Sorry, I'm banging on about this at the moment. Ancient Greeks made up the system we now call "Logic". The logical system is relative because it was created. It has definition and expression. As long as both of these are kept the same at each step, logic will be useful. Socrates and Plato and the like were masters at this, they would split "definition" and "expression" which created an illogical argument that looked logical but one that couldn't be defeated by another logical argument (because it was illogical).

See the Agnostic view of the world, splitting the two aspect thus, "God" definition, "Gods" expression. Mixing singular and plural which cannot be. A big deception in their argument meaning "what ever they argued would stand because a logical argument could not beat it. Hence why they created "Rhetoric" and the like, because it would not allow "reason" to enter the argument - i.e. the only thing that could debunk the illogical argument first presented.

What an incredibly clever trick, but what God-awful consequences it has had on our world and our people for the last 2000+ years.

Reply to A Seagull Mine. The one that sentence was in. This is a self-serving answer. And what followed were the details of that answer in that post.

Reply to A Seagull
Some approaches to philosophy contradict each other – realism and idealism can’t both be true-
while others merely present different perspectives or independent problems that can exist side by side with a number of different approaches. Existentialism, being about one’s personal relation to the world, can be paired with several different approaches.

A good philosophy may be restricted to a true philosophy, and whenever you argue in support of one school, you implicitly argue that it presents the right representation of the truth and consequently that it is a good philosophy.

“Good” may also refer to the logical consistency of an approach. In that case, all the major philosophical theories would be good, as they have certainly proven their worth by surviving. If in a system, there were significant internal breaches for anyone to see, it would quickly fall apart.

It’s been said that all of philosophy is just footnotes to Plato. It elaborates on the same general topics that Plato identified, and in that sense, it is all the same.
All philosophy that is truly philosophy, that which deals with the relevant topics, would then be good philosophy, and bad philosophy would be that which only pretends to be philosophy.

Whatever searches for the truth would be good philosophy, whereas whatever reduces it to an aimless game, would be sophism and bad.

So what makes for a good philosophy? Good in what respect?

Quoting Coben

?A Seagull Mine. The one that sentence was in. This is a self-serving answer. And what followed were the details of that answer in that post.

Yes, I eventually realised that!

Quoting Congau

A good philosophy may be restricted to a true philosophy

Presumably then, a true philosophy is one that is in concordance with the facts.

Quoting A Seagull

Presumably then, a true philosophy is one that is in concordance with the facts.

Well, of course anything that is true must be in concordance with facts, but it’s not necessarily correct the other way around. A philosophy can be in concordance with mere facts without being true. Facts are basic true observations about the world whereas a philosophy is a logical derivation of facts. All philosophical systems worthy of the name would start by stating facts that everyone can agree on. From there they will go in different directions and reach conclusions that contradict each other. The facts remain the same, though, and so in a sense they will all depend on those facts.

A philosophical truth is not observable in the same way a fact can be observed. Conclusions in moral philosophy, although they may be true, can’t really be called facts. For example, I am convinced that capital punishment is immoral, and I could refer to factual evidence to make the argument, but it would sound odd if I asserted that “it’s a fact that capital punishment is immoral”. Someone else might argue for the opposite and be quite correct about the mere facts referred to, but his conclusion would be false in my opinion. I could admit that what he said was in concordance with facts but still call his conclusion untrue.

Quoting StreetlightX

A good philosophy acts as a force multiplier to thought; it forges connections between the disparate, as elaboration on world and word. A good philosophy constantly surprises, pulls one along a forceful current of throught that propels a mind from one element to the next, and leaves one hungry for more. It inspires creation in thought and serves as a launchpad to thinking otherwise, always. It refers one constantly to an elsewhere and an outside that cannot be captured within that philosophy but on which it always draws upon, augments, and edifies.

OK, but that is a very subjective evaluation of philosophy; can you be more objective?

Reply to A Seagull There's nothing subjective about it. Or objective for that matter (a silly distinction of limited use, everywhere misapplied).

Quoting StreetlightX

?A Seagull There's nothing subjective about it. Or objective for that matter (a silly distinction of limited use, everywhere misapplied).

well that is up to you.

And a 'force multiplier to thought' is meaningful???

Quoting Congau

Conclusions in moral philosophy, although they may be true, can’t really be called facts.

Well perhaps there are no truths in moral philosophy.

We are talking metaphilosophy here, so is moral philosophy or at least truths in moral philosophy an essential part of a 'good' philosophy?

Quoting A Seagull

And a 'force multiplier to thought' is meaningful???

Do you know the term “force multiplier” in general?

Quoting A Seagull

And a 'force multiplier to thought' is meaningful???

Obviously.

Quoting A Seagull

perhaps there are no truths in moral philosophy.

There definitely are truths in moral philosophy, and we all implicitly think there are, or else we wouldn’t argue so vehemently over moral issues. When I say I believe that capital punishment is wrong, I’m saying that I believe it’s the truth that capital punishment is wrong. Sure, I can’t refer to it as a fact that other people could simply check on to know if it’s true. It’s not the same as saying “I believe it’s true that Paris is the capital of France”, but there’s no reason to assign the notion of truth exclusively to plain facts. Facts can be checked by simply taking a look, but something can be true even if that’s not possible.

Suppose I have a box with a diamond in it. I can open the box and check, notice the diamond and exclaim “There’s a diamond in the box.” Now suppose the same box is locked and I can’t open it, but for some reason I believe there is a diamond in it. Suppose no one could open that box. Still, there is a diamond in it, isn’t there. It is not a fact anymore and no one knows for sure, but the diamond’s existence is the truth.

Quoting Pfhorrest

And a 'force multiplier to thought' is meaningful??? — A Seagull
Do you know the term “force multiplier” in general?

From Wikipedia: ' force multiplication or a force multiplier refers to a factor or a combination of factors that gives personnel or weapons (or other hardware) the ability to accomplish greater feats than without it'.

Nothing to do with thought. If applied to thought it is just new age mumbo jumbo.

Quoting Congau

perhaps there are no truths in moral philosophy. — A SeagullThere definitely are truths in moral philosophy,

Just because you personally believe something, that doesn't make it a universal truth.

Quoting StreetlightX

And a 'force multiplier to thought' is meaningful??? — A Seagull
Obviously.

well you are so far stuck into your own world that discussion is pointless.

Quoting A Seagull

the ability to accomplish greater feats than without it'.

That is the relevant part. "Philosophy is a force multiplier to thought" means that thought is able to accomplish greater feats with philosophy than without it.

Reply to Pfhorrest Not sure why this seems to be so hard for Seagull.

Reply to Sam26 Reply to 180 Proof Reply to StreetlightX Reply to Cabbage Farmer :up: :up: :up: :up:

A many faceted thing!

Quoting A Seagull

What makes for a good philosophy?

Exploring of apparent implications under threat of reductio ad absurdum in order continually to clarify, revise and construct?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/397745