3 ms·

Counterargument: skepticism is kind of boring compared to the other positions. There's just not much to build on if you flatly reject the ability to build thing

Counterargument: skepticism is kind of boring compared to the other positions. There's just not much to build on if you flatly reject the ability to build things. People who're inclined to take that route are likely to avoid modern philosophy, so of course they would be a small minority of philosophers.

guerrilla 7y ago
Or you could take a look at the references and the corpus and see that there are strong arguments against it instead of just guessing with no data. Analytic philosophers don't tend to build things anyway. They focus more on answering specific questions. There are plenty of "continental" philosophers who still do and many in fact have no problem with this.
paganel 7y ago
You're assuming "building things" will bring us closer to getting to know the world a little better (or its essence), that might be false. > so of course they would be a small minority of philosophers I'm not a philosopher myself but I found Heraclitus's writings (Democritus's, too) a lot more interesting than many philosophers' writings from the 20th century, in this field being more modern doesn't necessarily mean being better or knowing more.
justin66 7y ago
> Counterargument: skepticism is kind of boring compared to the other positions. There's just not much to build on if you flatly reject the ability to build things. Skepticism doesn't demand that you "reject the ability to do things." See Hume.
Der_Einzige 7y ago
Hahahah it's like people just ignored all the awesome philosophy from radical skeptics. Max Stirner, the most radical skeptic of them all, is without a doubt a more interesting philosopher than many others one is forced to read. Moreover, contrary to the claim made by the OP - he expects the reader to have read philosophy from other authors. A radical skeptic like Stirner loves Kant and Hume. Maybe it's because Kant shows that the "thing-in-itself" is unknowable even if it exists and Hume shows us that empirical observation is basically all we have for trying to work with the world. Both show that no one in science has found anything resembling truth

guerrilla 7y ago

Or you could take a look at the references and the corpus and see that there are strong arguments against it instead of just guessing with no data. Analytic philosophers don't tend to build things anyway. They focus more on answering specific questions. There are plenty of "continental" philosophers who still do and many in fact have no problem with this.

paganel 7y ago

You're assuming "building things" will bring us closer to getting to know the world a little better (or its essence), that might be false. > so of course they would be a small minority of philosophers I'm not a philosopher myself but I found Heraclitus's writings (Democritus's, too) a lot more interesting than many philosophers' writings from the 20th century, in this field being more modern doesn't necessarily mean being better or knowing more.

justin66 7y ago

> Counterargument: skepticism is kind of boring compared to the other positions. There's just not much to build on if you flatly reject the ability to build things. Skepticism doesn't demand that you "reject the ability to do things." See Hume.

Der_Einzige 7y ago

Hahahah it's like people just ignored all the awesome philosophy from radical skeptics. Max Stirner, the most radical skeptic of them all, is without a doubt a more interesting philosopher than many others one is forced to read. Moreover, contrary to the claim made by the OP - he expects the reader to have read philosophy from other authors. A radical skeptic like Stirner loves Kant and Hume. Maybe it's because Kant shows that the "thing-in-itself" is unknowable even if it exists and Hume shows us that empirical observation is basically all we have for trying to work with the world. Both show that no one in science has found anything resembling truth