if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 2569
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Advocate »

it's that there's nothing all philosopers can agree on
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10708
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by henry quirk »

no
Advocate
Posts: 2569
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Advocate »

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=474958 time=1602284074 user_id=472]no[/quote]

Where's your evidence for that? What do you mean by "no"?
Age
Posts: 6676
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Age »

Yes.

And why only, so called, "philosophers"?

Also, how do you define the word 'philosopher' here, exactly?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2388
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by RCSaunders »

Advocate wrote: Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:15 pm it's that there's nothing all philosopers can agree on
I think they all agree that all other philosophers are wrong and about that they are all right.
zinnat13
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by zinnat13 »

I think that they all agree on that they cannot agree on anything ever.

with love,
Sanjay
Belinda
Posts: 4784
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Belinda »

Philosophers are defined by their level of reasoning. Most people can reason, even Trump supporters and small children, but higher levels of reasoning include self knowledge, honesty, and compassion.
Advocate
Posts: 2569
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Belinda post_id=474991 time=1602314685 user_id=12709]
Philosophers are defined by their level of reasoning. Most people can reason, even Trump supporters and small children, but higher levels of reasoning include self knowledge, honesty, and compassion.
[/quote]

Of the three, which is most pragmatically important? Isn't honesty a prerequisite for knowledge?
PeteJ
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by PeteJ »

As far as I know all philosophers agree that metaphysics does not endorse a positive result. This is a very significant agreement. Of course, they then proceed to disagree about how to interpret this result.
Skepdick
Posts: 8004
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Skepdick »

PeteJ wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:49 pm As far as I know all philosophers agree that metaphysics does not endorse a positive result. This is a very significant agreement. Of course, they then proceed to disagree about how to interpret this result.
Since this "agreement" is never actually expressed, how do you know that they actually agree?
PeteJ
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by PeteJ »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:04 pm Since this "agreement" is never actually expressed, how do you know that they actually agree?
It is widely expressed in three ways.

Some philosophers state it as a fact (Kant, Bradley)
Some just speak about the consequences, which is the undecidability of metaphysical problems (Russell, Carnap)
Most just suffer the consequences without being sure of their source. (Amateurs and many pros)

But everybody faces the same fact. Why do you imagine scientism, logical positivism, dialethism are popular?
,
Skepdick
Posts: 8004
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Skepdick »

PeteJ wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:11 pm It is widely expressed in three ways.

Some philosophers state it as a fact (Kant, Bradley)
And others disagree with them.
PeteJ wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:11 pm Some just speak about the consequences, which is the undecidability of metaphysical problems (Russell, Carnap)
And others disagree with them.
PeteJ wrote: Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:11 pm But everybody faces the same fact. Why do you imagine scientism, logical positivism, dialethism are popular?
They aren't?

Philosophy, being nothing but language games, is subject to different game strategies.
Your reason for participating in the game dictates how you might conduct discourse and which strategy you might pick.

Subversion necessitates disagreement.
Cooperation necessitates agreement.
Advocate
Posts: 2569
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Advocate »

>But everybody faces the same fact. Why do you imagine scientism, logical positivism, dialethism are popular?

Scientism is popular among those who insist science is the best way of knowing because they don't understand that logical arguments are more certain.
Logical positivism is popular among those who don't understand that most problems can be deconstructed to empirical or semantic questions.
Dialethism is popular among people without two brain cells to pass in the night.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11651
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Immanuel Can »

Should we call somebody who does not believe in logic, reason, truth or rational argumentation a "philosopher"? If we should, then there is no possibility of agreement, because every fool narrative is "philosophy," and every blind wisher is a "philosopher," are there are not even methods for making progress in understanding. Then philosophy is just solipsism, just a form of self-gratification...no more.

But maybe that's too broad a definition, and therein lies the problem.
Advocate
Posts: 2569
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=475060 time=1602343168 user_id=9431]
Should we call somebody who does not believe in logic, reason, truth or rational argumentation a "philosopher"? If we should, then there is no possibility of agreement, because every fool narrative is "philosophy," and every blind wisher is a "philosopher," are there are not even methods for making progress in understanding. Then philosophy is just solipsism, just a form of self-gratification...no more.

But maybe that's too broad a definition, and therein lies the problem.
[/quote]

The problem lies in the fact that most people, including most philosophers, don't see a problem with saying philosophy can only be questions, never answers. They've drunk the popular kool-aid.
Post Reply