What is certain in philosophy?
How much of what has been written about philosophy is indubitable?
How much of it is indistinguishable from opinion, even if that opinion is 'justified' by cogent arguments?
Personally, I am doubtful of almost all of it.
What, for you, is indubitable?
How much of it is indistinguishable from opinion, even if that opinion is 'justified' by cogent arguments?
Personally, I am doubtful of almost all of it.
What, for you, is indubitable?
Comments (47)
What would be indubitable to me about philosophy, that is to say what can be extrapolated from it, is that we all have different opinions, some of which benefit us as a society and some which do not, the former generally being gravitated toward and perhaps becoming more. Myths being residual and useful proof of this. Remnants or ghosts of the early human process of progress. Take the 'Japanese bathroom demon' from the 'mythical creatures' thread. It clearly had a purpose. Back then sanitation was likely poor and an unkept bathroom could be lethal. If you either appease the 'entity' say by incense or sprinkling something of value (that likely had antibacterial or disinfectant qualities) or banish it by in this case simply cleaning it, 'it' would leave and you would be safe as opposed to possibly getting sick, by what would presumably at that time be said entity. Makes sense.
What is certain, as best I can determine, is that it will continue to be spelled philosophy.
All the rest is in flux or doubt.
The scientific method seems to have a pretty good track record. There are the basic rules of logic and of honest argument, which also seem pretty stable.
It of course has a number of enduring questions: how do I know, what is my knowledge actually about (how real is reality), what should I do. And I think associated with these a basic position of doubt, that asks for claims to be justified, even if a true argument from first principles is perhaps impossible.
Cogito ergo sum.
The rest, more or less justified opinions or analysis work.
I wonder if perhaps, after all these years, epistemic defeatism deserves our respect and attention. By epistemic defeat (as I understand it at this point, in this time and in this place) I mean, or think I mean, that in the final analysis (and who's to know if it is or is not), and all things being equal (which they never are), we have no good evidence for the truth of any proposition. I say "perhaps" because I do not know. It appears (to me) that evidence is always conditional, or ignorant of something or other.
A justified belief in some facts of the science of the 18th century might not be a justified belief in the 21st century. Knowledge they say is "justified true belief" but I not sure we can know what is "true" perhaps the best we can do in look at the facts and our experience and formulate "justified belief" for own time and circumstances. From the professionals see below.
https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/RussellValuePhilosophy1912.pdf
Betrand Russell
HAVING now come to the end of our brief and very incomplete review of the problems
of philosophy, it will be well to consider, in conclusion, what is the value of philosophy
and why it ought to be studied. It is the more necessary to consider this question, in view
of the fact that many men, under the influence of science or of practical affairs, are
inclined to doubt whether philosophy is anything better than innocent but useless trifling,
hair-splitting distinctions, and controversies on matters concerning which knowledge is
impossible..........................
.Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied,
not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a
rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because
these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual
imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against
speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which
philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that
union with the universe which constitutes its highest good END
“Speculative Philosophy is the endeavor to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted. By this notion of interpretation’ I mean that everything of which we are conscious, as enjoyed, perceived, willed, or thought, shall have the character of a particular instance of the general scheme. Thus the philosophical scheme should be coherent, logical, and, in respect to its interpretation, applicable and adequate. Here ‘applicable’ means that some items of experience are thus interpretable, and ‘adequate’ means that there are no items incapable of such interpretation.”
– Alfred North Whitehead, In Defense of Speculative Philosophy
Whitehead's stronger claim; namely that "In philosophical discussion, the merest hint of dogmatic certainty as to finality of statement is an exhibition of folly."
What would be the point of writing down what is indubitable, except as a jumping off point (like Descartes' cogito)?
Well first, what do you mean by [s]"undubitable"[/s] "indubitable"?
Only sophistry (vide Plato's early-middle dialogues, or scholastic & utopian apologias, (all 31 flavors of) 'anti-realism', etc ... e.g. francophone/centric academic p0m0).
:mask:
Quoting prothero
:up:
I'm curious about this. Can you say a bit more?
Quoting prothero
I agree . . . and how difficult: MY folly too often.
I'm wondering if you had something specific in mind when you said "almost all of it". Or, perhaps you were meaning this in a more general way.
I've been thinking about what you said and it came to mind that, in real life, when someone expresses what they believe to be indubitable, they usually mean it as an ending point, a final conclusion to end conversation or inquiry--not a starting point. As in dogma: religious, scientific, philosophic or otherwise.
I'm thinking about this but am not sure I understand. Can you say a bit more? Perhaps an example would help.
Does this leave skepticism as the foundational philosophic default?
From the internet : 'impossible to doubt; unquestionable."
PS The word is 'Indubitable'.
I was thinking of things like "(I think therefore) I am", and : We create a model of the world , which is related to the phenomenon/numenon divide.
Philosophy is an activity.
That is what I was thinking of, yes. Not necessarily a radical scepticism, more a methodological approach.
But perhaps that's only true of parts of philosophy. There is also the philosophy of meaning and purpose, which seems to be less concerned with questions and more with guidance
Also, the presuppositions and entailments of every coherent concept or sound argument.
:up:
Thanks, I too favor the professor's response. Somehow, it reminded me of the William Carlos Willams poem:
The Red Wheelbarrow
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens
What makes philosophers interesting is that they are writing for themselves.
Once you start writing for other people, you become boring.
As it has been and will forever be.
Why should this be?
What do you men by 'logic'?
And how do you differentiate between 'practice' and 'application'?
All men are mortal.
I am a man.
I will die.
There are various logical schemes, but propositional logic doesn’t require application to the real world - meaning the nuances of semantics. In the purest state it is mathematical, whilst applied to statements the meaning of terms used has to be agreed upon.
Everything else is imbued with opinion, bias, guesswork, emotion, and un/happy exploration. The boon of the ‘philosophical’ mindset (so to speak) is the ready engagement with thoughts and ideas where the propositions involved are taken as a given for the sake of exploration - science arose due to certain methodologies (measured and applied predictive scheme) mapping onto our cosmological perspectives.
As I see it, logic is the manipulation of symbols according to specified rules.
Its application to words or statements is somewhat haphazard. There is no logical rigour to it. And any logical rigour in the abstract system is lost when it is applied to words.
If A is on B then B is under A
X is on drugs
Drugs is under X.
So others can learn?
That says it all ;)
Cogito ergo sum
Good answer, although I don't understand why you would practice what you wouldn't end up applying at some point.
Quoting A Seagull
You're confusing the symbol with its meaning. The "on" in the second statement doesn't mean the same as the "on" in your first, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow. It's not really about the symbols, but what the symbols mean.
Quite so, but when you apply 'mending' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic.
Notice the "for you"?
That's there because one chooses what to believe, and hence what to doubt.
Here again is the oft ignored distinction between what is true and what is believed.
When you write for yourself, you try to satisfy a demand that there is something that is hidden and you can bring into view.
Most of everything else are reactions to those kinds of expression.
They are tied together.
Noticing that does not give the observation a special place in line before other observations. I am just trying to figure out the border between proclamations and response.
I don't know what you mean by "mending" in this statement.
I don't know either! I think it must be a typo for 'meaning'.
And what is that distinction?
What do you believe to be true?
OK, so your statement has been corrected in the above quote.
In X=a, does X mean a?
Think of it this way,
On1 = used as a function word to indicate position in contact with and supported by the top surface of
On2 = regularly using or showing the effects of using
If A is on1 B then B is under A
X is on2 drugs
Drugs is under X
You seem to think that "on" only has one definition. It has several, which needs to be considered when making such statements, and what meaning is appropriate in which context.
In each statement "on" is in a different context, which makes it means something different (i.e. you are using two different definitions of "on"), so the "under" is not part of the same context as "on" the second premise.
I mean, if you didn't mean the second definition in your second statement, rather the first, then someone can be in contact with and supported by the top surface of some drugs. You can stand on a kilo of cocaine as well as put it on your head to be under drugs. If this were the case then there is no logical problem.
So it seems to me that it is up to you to show which version of "on" that you meant, as it can be logical and visually coherent for you to mean it one way, but not the other.
What is the relationship between the scribble "on" and the scribble "under" if not what they mean, as in they are opposites?
The second usage of "on" could have meant the opposite and still be coherent, but if using the other then you need to establish the identity of "on" that you are using, precisely because "on" can mean different things.
Actually, you did establish the identity of "on" in your first statement:
Quoting A Seagull
as the opposite of "under", as in the first definition I provided above.
But then your second statement establishes an ambiguous identity of "on",
so your argument is invalid because you are not consistently using "on" the same way in both statements - a concrete identity vs an ambiguous one.
Does this mean that all the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Wittgenstein et al amount to nothing more than opinions and suggestions?
No. IMO :smirk: philosophies - contra doxa, sophistry, dogmas - are, in effect, rationally - more than merely rhetorically - reflective (meta) heuristics (i.e. noncognitive use-claims) like e.g. musical composition, martial arts, orienteering; thereby distinct from declarative (object) algorithms (i.e. cognitive truth-claims) such as e.g. physics, mathematics, engineering, computation, medicine, etc ... including 'pseudo-sciences' (re: untestable, empirical, claims) as well.