5 ms·
Yes, if we were absolutely convinced of the correctness of analytical philosophy and the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that wou
by olooney 6y ago
Yes, if we were absolutely convinced of the correctness of analytical philosophy and the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that would indeed be a good filter. If we are not quite so certain perhaps we should not prematurely put the kibosh on ideas just because they run afoul of one particular point of view, but rather let them all into the arena to fight it out?
- TimTheTinker 6y agoAre you saying a potentially true idea could commit known fallacies? If so, what you’re really saying is that analytical philosophy is in question... in that case, I don’t think it’s worth arguing with you.
- olooney 6y agoThat is correct. As my argument was not a proposition expressed in or reducible to a formal language, nor was it an empirically verifiable statement of fact, it is neither true nor false but is in fact meaningless. There was no point in my expressing it, and there is certainly no point in you arguing with it. As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
- TimTheTinker 6y agoAn argument or proposition doesn't have to be formal or empirically verifiable (or or even falsifiable) to be subject to the kibosh of basic analysis.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that would indeed be a good filter No doubt hypotheses can be discovered in some other manner. I do not think the epistemic method used in the continental school of philosophy provides any sort of way of verifying those hypotheses from premises.