3 ms·

You're generally right, but I take issue with the claims: "philosophy does not normally deal in absolutes it is impossible to say the later philosopher is now m

You're generally right, but I take issue with the claims: "philosophy does not normally deal in absolutes it is impossible to say the later philosopher is now more correct and worth reading instead of the earlier philosopher" and "Neither answer is factually wrong or right". I hope you and everyone else realizes that these are philosophical claims, and controversial ones at that! I would tenatively assert that the majority of philosophers now and in the past have believed the following two things: 1) moral statements like "murder is wrong" are objectively true or false. 2) philosophical statements are also objectively true or false. (Note that I say "objective", not "factual" as some people would make a distinction between the two, as in the fact-value distinction). Like any philosophical issue, there is a lot of debate. But when characterizing what philosophers think, how philosophers act, you have to make clear what's your own view, as opposed to settled fact. That said, I agree with you the central claim that the works of historical philosophers are often of equal or greater insight than contemporary work.

Others 10y ago
> moral statements like "murder is wrong" are objectively true or false That is an incredibly controversial statement... Moral relativism much?
- hyperpape 10y ago
  I pretty clearly said it was controversial, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That said, moral relativism has a very low status in philosophy. Many philosophers think it is simply incoherent (the fifth paragraph here dances around one reason: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/#MetMorRel https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/#MetMorR...). It is much more common for philosophers to hold that there simply are no moral facts, or that moral statements are merely expressions of approval or disapproval, or some similar position (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/).
- VLM 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory The value of something like just war theory isn't so much to say the concept is right or wrong, or this historical war was right or wrong, although plenty of people love to derail the discussion to grind their own particular axe on those topics, but the real value is to define the right way to talk about the topic, and that doesn't change much with time. As a minimal example of a very small corner of the field today, look at the current Catholic dogma where they say the right way to talk about it is WRT the damage an aggressor or proposed victim is causing must be "lasting, grave, and certain". Arguably the order the arguments are discussed implies a certain priority to the issues. Hopefully I've managed to offend grand op by pointing out that as long as it takes PR to cause a war, then the philosophical subfield of just war theory will be living and growing continuously over time, while also offending great grand op by pointing out that just because you haven't read Saint Augustine on the topic of just war (or possibly anything else) doesn't prove he has nothing of value in 2017. Or my genealogy of posts might be inaccurate, but whatever.
chrisdone 10y ago
He just means that great philosophers tend to talk about relationships in the abstract and not historical artifacts that become dated. Murder is wrong is not going out of date any time soon, and yet "murder by electric chair is wrong" is hardly going to be considered a great philosophical statement because it depends on incidental artifacts.
paganel 10y ago
> I would tenatively assert that the majority of philosophers now and in the past have believed the following two things: 1) moral statements like "murder is wrong" are objectively true or false. 2) philosophical statements are also objectively true or false. That is not entirely true about Heraclitus. Aristotle accused him of believing that there is no "true" or "false", and even though Aristotle was biased (don't know the reasons, but it seems like he holds a grudge against Heraclitus) by skipping through the remaining fragments from Heraclitus I'd say that Aristotle was at least partially right, there are indeed moments when you think that for guys (they were mostly guys) like Heraclitus there wasn't a clear distinction between "true" and "false". I've said it before on HN, in slightly more eloquent terms, that Aristotle and his principle of "tertium non datur" is what allowed our civilization to scientifically and economically prosper, it's what allowed us to put a man on the Moon and to hold mini-computers connected to the Internet inside our pockets, but if one reads those Heraclitus fragments there are hints of possible intellectual/not-sure-what-to-call them worlds where indeed the difference between "true" and "false" is relative, where a thing can be "true" and "false" and in any other state at any-one time. I can't comment about Heraclitus's or pre-Socratics' views on morals, AFAIK that was mostly a thing that started to matter with Plato and then with the Stoics. It certainly became "a thing" in later Anglo-Saxon philosophy, where things like "sins" and the like started to become important.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  Eastern philosophy also holds some middle path values that reject true/false dischotomies. However, the vast majority of western philosophy—what people tend to refer to with "philosophy"—is built on objective truths and deductive reasoning. I'm comfortable with his point #2 above. The actual existence of truth--that's another story.
  - hyperpape 10y ago
    Good point. I'd edit my comment to read "Western philosophy" if I could still edit it.

Others 10y ago

> moral statements like "murder is wrong" are objectively true or false That is an incredibly controversial statement... Moral relativism much?

hyperpape 10y ago
I pretty clearly said it was controversial, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That said, moral relativism has a very low status in philosophy. Many philosophers think it is simply incoherent (the fifth paragraph here dances around one reason: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/#MetMorRel https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/#MetMorR...). It is much more common for philosophers to hold that there simply are no moral facts, or that moral statements are merely expressions of approval or disapproval, or some similar position (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/).
VLM 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory The value of something like just war theory isn't so much to say the concept is right or wrong, or this historical war was right or wrong, although plenty of people love to derail the discussion to grind their own particular axe on those topics, but the real value is to define the right way to talk about the topic, and that doesn't change much with time. As a minimal example of a very small corner of the field today, look at the current Catholic dogma where they say the right way to talk about it is WRT the damage an aggressor or proposed victim is causing must be "lasting, grave, and certain". Arguably the order the arguments are discussed implies a certain priority to the issues. Hopefully I've managed to offend grand op by pointing out that as long as it takes PR to cause a war, then the philosophical subfield of just war theory will be living and growing continuously over time, while also offending great grand op by pointing out that just because you haven't read Saint Augustine on the topic of just war (or possibly anything else) doesn't prove he has nothing of value in 2017. Or my genealogy of posts might be inaccurate, but whatever.

chrisdone 10y ago

He just means that great philosophers tend to talk about relationships in the abstract and not historical artifacts that become dated. Murder is wrong is not going out of date any time soon, and yet "murder by electric chair is wrong" is hardly going to be considered a great philosophical statement because it depends on incidental artifacts.

paganel 10y ago

> I would tenatively assert that the majority of philosophers now and in the past have believed the following two things: 1) moral statements like "murder is wrong" are objectively true or false. 2) philosophical statements are also objectively true or false. That is not entirely true about Heraclitus. Aristotle accused him of believing that there is no "true" or "false", and even though Aristotle was biased (don't know the reasons, but it seems like he holds a grudge against Heraclitus) by skipping through the remaining fragments from Heraclitus I'd say that Aristotle was at least partially right, there are indeed moments when you think that for guys (they were mostly guys) like Heraclitus there wasn't a clear distinction between "true" and "false". I've said it before on HN, in slightly more eloquent terms, that Aristotle and his principle of "tertium non datur" is what allowed our civilization to scientifically and economically prosper, it's what allowed us to put a man on the Moon and to hold mini-computers connected to the Internet inside our pockets, but if one reads those Heraclitus fragments there are hints of possible intellectual/not-sure-what-to-call them worlds where indeed the difference between "true" and "false" is relative, where a thing can be "true" and "false" and in any other state at any-one time. I can't comment about Heraclitus's or pre-Socratics' views on morals, AFAIK that was mostly a thing that started to matter with Plato and then with the Stoics. It certainly became "a thing" in later Anglo-Saxon philosophy, where things like "sins" and the like started to become important.

throwaway91111 10y ago
Eastern philosophy also holds some middle path values that reject true/false dischotomies. However, the vast majority of western philosophy—what people tend to refer to with "philosophy"—is built on objective truths and deductive reasoning. I'm comfortable with his point #2 above. The actual existence of truth--that's another story.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  Good point. I'd edit my comment to read "Western philosophy" if I could still edit it.