if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on

[Advocate]

it's that there's nothing all philosopers can agree on

[henry quirk]

no

[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]

Yes.

And why only, so called, "philosophers"?

Also, how do you define the word 'philosopher' here, exactly?

[RCSaunders]

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]

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

with love,
Sanjay

[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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

It is widely expressed in three ways.

Some philosophers state it as a fact (Kant, Bradley)

And others disagree with them.

Some just speak about the consequences, which is the undecidability of metaphysical problems (Russell, Carnap)

And others disagree with them.

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]

>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.

[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]

[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.