Re: if there's anything that all philosopers can agree on
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 10:54 am
It seems that Scepdick and Advocate have invented a new kind of philosophy. In this new philosophy we must ignore the facts and assume all philosophers are crazy except these two.
How a person can study philosophy for more than a day and not realise that all positive metaphysical theories fail in logic is a mystery to me. It is the entire problem of philosophy. I blame our education system.
I would recommend reading a book or two on metaphysics.
If you want to keep arguing then you would need to provide an example of a decidable metaphysical question, or an example of a phiiosopher who has decided one or name a philosopher who has argued one is decidable. Good luck with that.
As there seems to be some confusion - A metaphysical question asks about the true or fundamental nature of Reality. All such questions are undecidable in dialectical logic and this is well-known fact.
I see no need to argue further. The information is in the public domain. Kant puts it as - All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. Bradley puts it as - metaphysics does not produce a positive result. Nagarjuna puts it as - All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. Good luck gainsaying this result. Nobody else ever has.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to argue this point,
How a person can study philosophy for more than a day and not realise that all positive metaphysical theories fail in logic is a mystery to me. It is the entire problem of philosophy. I blame our education system.
I would recommend reading a book or two on metaphysics.
If you want to keep arguing then you would need to provide an example of a decidable metaphysical question, or an example of a phiiosopher who has decided one or name a philosopher who has argued one is decidable. Good luck with that.
As there seems to be some confusion - A metaphysical question asks about the true or fundamental nature of Reality. All such questions are undecidable in dialectical logic and this is well-known fact.
I see no need to argue further. The information is in the public domain. Kant puts it as - All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. Bradley puts it as - metaphysics does not produce a positive result. Nagarjuna puts it as - All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. Good luck gainsaying this result. Nobody else ever has.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to argue this point,