correct answering
correct answering
correct - free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.
There is at least one correct answer to every question in philosophy.
There is at least one correct answer to every question in philosophy.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6339
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: correct answering
Is that the result of painstaking deductive reasoning, or throrough inductive observation? Or was it just something you read off a square denim stitched to a biker's jacket at a hog roast?
Re: correct answering
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=508482 time=1619150248 user_id=11800]
Is that the result of painstaking deductive reasoning, or throrough inductive observation? Or was it just something you read off a square denim stitched to a biker's jacket at a hog roast?
[/quote]
No, that's not what you say. You say, "I wonder if there's any exceptions to that rule? 'Cause if not, that's a very important philosophical principle!"
Is that the result of painstaking deductive reasoning, or throrough inductive observation? Or was it just something you read off a square denim stitched to a biker's jacket at a hog roast?
[/quote]
No, that's not what you say. You say, "I wonder if there's any exceptions to that rule? 'Cause if not, that's a very important philosophical principle!"
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6339
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: correct answering
Is it really a "very important philosophical principle"? It seems more like a banal mcnugget of triteness written by the sort of person who hopes to break into the market for gnomic little maxims to be shared over Facebook, printed on a picture of a philosopher's statue, by some influencer's wise auntie.Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:18 amNo, that's not what you say. You say, "I wonder if there's any exceptions to that rule? 'Cause if not, that's a very important philosophical principle!"FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:57 am Is that the result of painstaking deductive reasoning, or throrough inductive observation? Or was it just something you read off a square denim stitched to a biker's jacket at a hog roast?
Re: correct answering
There is only one question that has a definite answer in philosophy - does anything exist? As long as that question can be asked, the answer is yes. Everything else is up for grabs and any question that has at least one correct answer isn't philosophical.
Re: correct answering
[quote=uwot post_id=508513 time=1619180779 user_id=7941]
[quote=Advocate post_id=508448 time=1619138732 user_id=15238]correct - free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.
There is at least one correct answer to every question in philosophy.[/quote]There is only one question that has a definite answer in philosophy - does anything exist? As long as that question can be asked, the answer is yes. Everything else is up for grabs and any question that has at least one correct answer isn't philosophical.
[/quote]
If there is only one possibly correct answer in philosophy, there's nothing else for your to do here. Go home.
[quote=Advocate post_id=508448 time=1619138732 user_id=15238]correct - free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.
There is at least one correct answer to every question in philosophy.[/quote]There is only one question that has a definite answer in philosophy - does anything exist? As long as that question can be asked, the answer is yes. Everything else is up for grabs and any question that has at least one correct answer isn't philosophical.
[/quote]
If there is only one possibly correct answer in philosophy, there's nothing else for your to do here. Go home.
Re: correct answering
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=508497 time=1619156482 user_id=11800]
Is it really a "very important philosophical principle"? It seems more like a banal mcnugget of triteness written by the sort of person who hopes to break into the market for gnomic little maxims to be shared over Facebook, printed on a picture of a philosopher's statue, by some influencer's wise auntie.
[/quote]
If you're so not here to do philosophy that a potentially ground-breaking idea is automatically useless to you, perhaps there's something better you could do with your time? Let's examine your contention.
I say "there is an answer to every philosophical question."
You say "that's so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring."
If it's so obvious, why doesn't any major player in the field of philosophy advocate the position? If it's so boring why are you responding? If it's so lacking in originality, why isn't anyone else talking about it. Your contentions don't hold water like mine do.
You say it's overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness.
Where is it used so frequently as to be overused? I think you just made that up. I think you're so high on smoking your own ego that you believe using fancy words like banal and trite against others to make yourself feel good is somehow philosophy.
Is it really a "very important philosophical principle"? It seems more like a banal mcnugget of triteness written by the sort of person who hopes to break into the market for gnomic little maxims to be shared over Facebook, printed on a picture of a philosopher's statue, by some influencer's wise auntie.
[/quote]
If you're so not here to do philosophy that a potentially ground-breaking idea is automatically useless to you, perhaps there's something better you could do with your time? Let's examine your contention.
I say "there is an answer to every philosophical question."
You say "that's so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring."
If it's so obvious, why doesn't any major player in the field of philosophy advocate the position? If it's so boring why are you responding? If it's so lacking in originality, why isn't anyone else talking about it. Your contentions don't hold water like mine do.
You say it's overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness.
Where is it used so frequently as to be overused? I think you just made that up. I think you're so high on smoking your own ego that you believe using fancy words like banal and trite against others to make yourself feel good is somehow philosophy.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: correct answering
This wouldn't normally be addressed because "Is there a correct answer to every philosophical question?" isn't much of an issue in philosophy. I can't offhand think of any philosopher addressing it in anything like those terms, at least.
Re: correct answering
[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=508519 time=1619182177 user_id=12582]
This wouldn't normally be addressed because "Is there a correct answer to every philosophical question?" isn't much of an issue in philosophy. I can't offhand think of any philosopher addressing it in anything like those terms, at least.
[/quote]
In my experience, running across "there are no answers" is quite common, both in philosophy and regular reality. The self-defeating nature of that position is lost on ignoramii. If our meta-philosophy isn't correct, what else can be?!
This wouldn't normally be addressed because "Is there a correct answer to every philosophical question?" isn't much of an issue in philosophy. I can't offhand think of any philosopher addressing it in anything like those terms, at least.
[/quote]
In my experience, running across "there are no answers" is quite common, both in philosophy and regular reality. The self-defeating nature of that position is lost on ignoramii. If our meta-philosophy isn't correct, what else can be?!
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: correct answering
Usually "there are no correct(/incorrect) answers" is said in the context of something that's opinion-oriented only--in the sense of reporting how one feels about whatever it is, and it's just a way of encouraging people to do just that--report how they feel, or what their personal view is.Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:08 pmIn my experience, running across "there are no answers" is quite common, both in philosophy and regular reality. The self-defeating nature of that position is lost on ignoramii. If our meta-philosophy isn't correct, what else can be?!Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:49 pm This wouldn't normally be addressed because "Is there a correct answer to every philosophical question?" isn't much of an issue in philosophy. I can't offhand think of any philosopher addressing it in anything like those terms, at least.
Re: correct answering
The only logically watertight fact is 'There is something'. It is the only thing that can be represented of which the antithesis would be self refuting. The sentence 'There is nothing' cannot be true if that sentence exists. That is the entirety of sound ontology. As for epistemology the logical necessity starts and ends with 'I think, therefore I am.' We could argue the toss over that, but it's way over your pay grade. Anyway, beyond ontology and epistemology, you get into science, ethics, politics, aesthetics none of which admit answers that are 'correct', and then you have the rules of the game which is logic, which again doesn't admit 'correct' answers or even correct logic. Long story short: any proposition that is not self refuting could be true, and I'm not even certain about that.
Re: correct answering
[quote=uwot post_id=508544 time=1619188546 user_id=7941]
[quote=Advocate post_id=508515 time=1619181214 user_id=15238]If there is only one possibly correct answer in philosophy, there's nothing else for your to do here. Go home.[/quote]The only logically watertight fact is 'There is something'. It is the only thing that can be represented of which the antithesis would be self refuting. The sentence 'There is nothing' cannot be true if that sentence exists. That is the entirety of sound ontology. As for epistemology the logical necessity starts and ends with 'I think, therefore I am.' We could argue the toss over that, but it's way over your pay grade. Anyway, beyond ontology and epistemology, you get into science, ethics, politics, aesthetics none of which admit answers that are 'correct', and then you have the rules of the game which is logic, which again doesn't admit 'correct' answers or even correct logic. Long story short: any proposition that is not self refuting could be true, and I'm not even certain about that.
[/quote]
Logic represents relationships that hold true 100% of the time. There are many such relationships. Causality and measurement are examples. The question isn't which story is true, many are trivially so, but which is both necessary and sufficient, pragmatic and poetic. tiny.cc/TheWholeStory is more than adequate to address everything you've said from multiple angles, coherently.
[quote=Advocate post_id=508515 time=1619181214 user_id=15238]If there is only one possibly correct answer in philosophy, there's nothing else for your to do here. Go home.[/quote]The only logically watertight fact is 'There is something'. It is the only thing that can be represented of which the antithesis would be self refuting. The sentence 'There is nothing' cannot be true if that sentence exists. That is the entirety of sound ontology. As for epistemology the logical necessity starts and ends with 'I think, therefore I am.' We could argue the toss over that, but it's way over your pay grade. Anyway, beyond ontology and epistemology, you get into science, ethics, politics, aesthetics none of which admit answers that are 'correct', and then you have the rules of the game which is logic, which again doesn't admit 'correct' answers or even correct logic. Long story short: any proposition that is not self refuting could be true, and I'm not even certain about that.
[/quote]
Logic represents relationships that hold true 100% of the time. There are many such relationships. Causality and measurement are examples. The question isn't which story is true, many are trivially so, but which is both necessary and sufficient, pragmatic and poetic. tiny.cc/TheWholeStory is more than adequate to address everything you've said from multiple angles, coherently.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6339
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: correct answering
I didn't say that it was obviously true, your little maxim is specious; neither true nor false. Specious incidentally is not a fancy word, but neither is banal or trite. What you wrote doesn't really mean anything, it wouldn't be important if it did, and wouldn't demonstrate any useful truth anyway.Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:44 pmIf you're so not here to do philosophy that a potentially ground-breaking idea is automatically useless to you, perhaps there's something better you could do with your time? Let's examine your contention.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:41 am Is it really a "very important philosophical principle"? It seems more like a banal mcnugget of triteness written by the sort of person who hopes to break into the market for gnomic little maxims to be shared over Facebook, printed on a picture of a philosopher's statue, by some influencer's wise auntie.
I say "there is an answer to every philosophical question."
You say "that's so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring."
If it's so obvious, why doesn't any major player in the field of philosophy advocate the position? If it's so boring why are you responding? If it's so lacking in originality, why isn't anyone else talking about it. Your contentions don't hold water like mine do.
You say it's overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness.
Where is it used so frequently as to be overused? I think you just made that up. I think you're so high on smoking your own ego that you believe using fancy words like banal and trite against others to make yourself feel good is somehow philosophy.
Most (if not all) of the big sounding questions in philosophy don't mean anything either, and much of the activity of philosophy revolves around working out why they sound like they do mean something. You can resolve almost any question in this whole field by just saying it is dumb, and you've given a trivially correct answer, but without doing any useful philosophy at all - not that usefulness is entirely the point of philosophy anyway.
If your opening statement were intended to have any particular consequence, you would have been able to say whether it was supposed to be a deductive or an inductive claim. Deduction and induction are also not fancy words.
You will never be any good as a philosopher if you don't easily understand this sort of thing. You are currently doing less well than Vaginal Aquafresh, and barely better than Hedgehog7, and both of those guys are total fucking idiots.
Re: correct answering
How can there be "at least" one correct answer. Surely if the intention of the question is clear then only one answer can ever suffice?
Any multiple answers are a response to ignorance, lack of clarity in the question or the fact that there is no actual answer.
Re: correct answering
Logic is a set of rules that are agreed by two or more players. Personally, I am happy with Aristotelian syllogistic logic for nearly all conversational purposes, but frankly can you hurdle even that low bar?