Philosophy undermines truth
Philosophy undermines truth
P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.
This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.
This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
I wonder what that means.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:39 am P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.
This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
What's confusing you? Help me help you.Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 8:08 amI wonder what that means.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:39 am P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.
This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
I'm not confused; I just have no idea what you mean. Don't worry about it; I don't need to know.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 8:09 amWhat's confusing you? Help me help you.Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 8:08 amI wonder what that means.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:39 am P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.
This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
-
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
As Descartes showed, apart from 'I think, therefore I am', everything that may be true is unprovable.
Well, you can make up such philosophical social norms and no doubt find individuals who do precisely that. I might counter with a philosophical social norm of my own, the adherents of which understand the story telling nature of philosophy, accept that every theory is underdetermined and acknowledge that any one of a number of hypotheses can explain the same phenomena, with the same precision as one or more other hypothesis and that therefore, there is no way to tell which, if any, is the truth.
Yep; it's all about making a compelling case. According to my philosophical social norm, members don't undermine truth. They might undermine nutjobs who think they know it; more likely they'll ignore them.
Whatever fruitloopery floats their boat.
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
Q.E.DWill Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:13 amAs Descartes showed, apart from 'I think, therefore I am', everything that may be true is unprovable.
Descartes was a philosopher and therefore an idiot.
He fell right into the Philosophical trap of profs and justifications with. Cogito ergo sum. A -> B
Why not Sum ergo cogito? B -> A?
Why not just Sum? Why not just Cogito? They are both true.
Great! So how and why did you choose the story Cogito ergo sum; over the story Sum ergo cogito?Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:13 amWell, you can make up such philosophical social norms and no doubt find individuals who do precisely that. I might counter with a philosophical social norm of my own, the adherents of which understand the story telling nature of philosophy, accept that every theory is underdetermined and acknowledge that any one of a number of hypotheses can explain the same phenomena, with the same precision as one or more other hypothesis and that therefore, there is no way to tell which, if any, is the truth.
Seeming as they have equivalent explanatory power.
A compeling case is a justification.
What compelled you about Cogito ergo sum that didn't compel you about Sum ergo cogito?
So you think that undermining nutjobs who claim to know the truth need to be undermined? That sounds like a moral task; or a moral duty.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:13 am According to my philosophical social norm, members don't undermine truth. They might undermine nutjobs who think they know it; more likely they'll ignore them.
Do you think we should also undermine nutjobs who claim to know the truth that morality is subjective?
Including or excluding the fruitloopery of Philosophy?
-
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
Well, it seems to me that in order to think, one must exist. I don't happen to believe that in order to exist, one must think.
Yep; it's all about making a compelling case.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:43 amA compeling case is a justification.
Depends on your morals. Sometimes having a go at nutjobs is just a bit of a laugh, and I entirely understand those who find it morally reprehensible to do so.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:43 amSo you think that undermining nutjobs who claim to know the truth need to be undermined? That sounds like a moral task; or a moral duty.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:13 amAccording to my philosophical social norm, members don't undermine truth. They might undermine nutjobs who think they know it; more likely they'll ignore them.
Definitely including.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:43 amIncluding or excluding the fruitloopery of Philosophy?
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
Precisely! The true order of events is necessarily existence THEN thinking. Thinking is a consequent of existence.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:11 amWell, it seems to me that in order to think, one must exist. I don't happen to believe that in order to exist, one must think.
Sum -> Cogito.
It trivially follows that Descartes is not telling the truth.
I heard you the first time.
So what compelled you about Cogito ergo sum; that didn't compel you about sum ergo cogito?
What drew you away from the truth?
Great, so is it moral or immoral for the fruitloopery of Philosophy to undermine truth?Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:11 am Depends on your morals. Sometimes having a go at nutjobs is just a bit of a laugh, and I entirely understand those who find it morally reprehensible to do so.
Definitely including.
-
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
The standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker. All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.
It's a bit like asking whether it is moral or immoral that bears shit in the woods.
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
Where is the "there" where thoughts are? Maybe you meant to say "All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that here are thoughts."?Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:36 amThe standard objection to Descartes is that it doesn't necessarily follow from thoughts that there has to be a thinker.
All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.
Exactly. The necessary truth of the thinker's existence doesn't follow from anything.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:36 am All that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.
And then there's the misnomer of calling oneself a thinker, especially during the periods of one's existence when one doesn't think.
An exister would've been a much better name.
That sounds like you are agreeing on the truth that Philosophy undermines truth.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:36 amIt's a bit like asking whether it is moral or immoral that bears shit in the woods.
-
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm
Re: Philosophy undermines truth
No, it doesn't follow from any thought that there is any there anywhere.
I don't think thinking necessarily implies a thinker.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:43 amExactly. The necessary truth of the thinker's existence doesn't follow from anything.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:36 amAll that necessarily follows from thoughts is that there are thoughts.
Descartes settled on thinking as a catch all term for having any experience at all. It could be that during the periods when one doesn't experience, one doesn't exist.
Except you can't prove an exister from a thought, unless you argue that the thought of an exister is the same as an exister.