3 ms·

First of all, thank you for your thorough replies, and not just to me. I feel you engage in and know philosophy way more than I do, though I know in philosophic

First of all, thank you for your thorough replies, and not just to me. I feel you engage in and know philosophy way more than I do, though I know in philosophical circles this is not supposed to be a problem. My main issue is simply that you labeled "stupid" and "unjustified" a position that indisputably has been justified at length (clearly not to your satisfaction), and that (at the risk of sounding stupid myself) makes some sense, like so many incompatible positions in this area. I understand people in philosophy are prone to dismiss other views, either as stupid, stating "we must pass over in silence", or with some remark in between. Interestingly, and I'm sure with plenty of precedent, in Wittgenstein's case he came to dismiss parts of his own dismissal later on. I won't get into the philosophical issues themselves (as I'm sure it can only hurt my case:), but you must surely be aware that when dealing with philosophical matters, your, my or anybody's agreement or dismissal of a viewpoint will never be universal, not even nearly universal. To wit, philosophers will still in this century go back and forth about the law of non-contradiction [1], one of the pillars of classical logic, and there is no sign of a slowdown. So, before you find "evidence (empirical or logical)" you may have to first wrestle about the very nature and demarcation of logic, with turtles all the way down. Like you say, these issues can be fun to think about... or not (I'm not sure I can agree, certainly not for the prolonged periods of time that would make a person a philosopher), but in any event I have great appreciation for the people that get involved seriously in this discipline. Precisely for this reason, I take issue with labeling most any position carefully put forth as stupid, moronic, unjustified, etc. Even more so when nobody will ever get nowhere near unanimous consensus on any topic in philosophy, which can easily be contrasted with science or mathematics, where you do find it, at least for some issues, such as the (sigh... nearly) universally dismissed geocentric and flat-Earth models. [1] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-law-of-non-contradiction-9780199265176?cc=es&lang=en& https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-law-of-non-contr...

kerkeslager 7y ago
> Interestingly, and I'm sure with plenty of precedent, in Wittgenstein's case he came to dismiss parts of his own dismissal later on. Okay, but that doesn't prove that I will reach the same conclusions Wittgenstein did. > I won't get into the philosophical issues themselves (as I'm sure it can only hurt my case:), but you must surely be aware that when dealing with philosophical matters, your, my or anybody's agreement or dismissal of a viewpoint will never be universal, not even nearly universal. Whether everyone believes the truth is irrelevant to whether or not it's true. Universality and consensus are not goals I have when seeking the truth. It will never be the case that everyone believes what's true. > To wit, philosophers will still in this century go back and forth about the law of non-contradiction [1], one of the pillars of classical logic, and there is no sign of a slowdown. So, before you find "evidence (empirical or logical)" you may have to first wrestle about the very nature and demarcation of logic, with turtles all the way down. Sure. I won't claim to have a solution to this debate, but this, like "Can we trust our senses?" is another question without implications. If the law of contradiction is false, few people are willing to really put their money where their mouth is and really embrace contradiction, and those who do end up in psych wards. That doesn't help us prove that it's true (or false) but it does make the question fairly uninteresting. I prefer to ask questions where the answer has real-world implications.
- ezequiel-garzon 7y ago
  Universality and consensus are not goals I have when seeking the truth. If there is one truth per (willing) mind we might as well call them points of view, no? I won't hide that's a big part of what pulled me to mathematics for my college degree: foundational issues notwithstanding, it is the discipline that, at least on some fundamental notions (such as the number 7 being prime), gets closest to universality and consensus. I prefer to ask questions where the answer has real-world implications. You have basically stated that science is more interesting to you than philosophy. We can agree on that, and so can most other people.

kerkeslager 7y ago

> Interestingly, and I'm sure with plenty of precedent, in Wittgenstein's case he came to dismiss parts of his own dismissal later on. Okay, but that doesn't prove that I will reach the same conclusions Wittgenstein did. > I won't get into the philosophical issues themselves (as I'm sure it can only hurt my case:), but you must surely be aware that when dealing with philosophical matters, your, my or anybody's agreement or dismissal of a viewpoint will never be universal, not even nearly universal. Whether everyone believes the truth is irrelevant to whether or not it's true. Universality and consensus are not goals I have when seeking the truth. It will never be the case that everyone believes what's true. > To wit, philosophers will still in this century go back and forth about the law of non-contradiction [1], one of the pillars of classical logic, and there is no sign of a slowdown. So, before you find "evidence (empirical or logical)" you may have to first wrestle about the very nature and demarcation of logic, with turtles all the way down. Sure. I won't claim to have a solution to this debate, but this, like "Can we trust our senses?" is another question without implications. If the law of contradiction is false, few people are willing to really put their money where their mouth is and really embrace contradiction, and those who do end up in psych wards. That doesn't help us prove that it's true (or false) but it does make the question fairly uninteresting. I prefer to ask questions where the answer has real-world implications.

ezequiel-garzon 7y ago
Universality and consensus are not goals I have when seeking the truth. If there is one truth per (willing) mind we might as well call them points of view, no? I won't hide that's a big part of what pulled me to mathematics for my college degree: foundational issues notwithstanding, it is the discipline that, at least on some fundamental notions (such as the number 7 being prime), gets closest to universality and consensus. I prefer to ask questions where the answer has real-world implications. You have basically stated that science is more interesting to you than philosophy. We can agree on that, and so can most other people.