3 ms·
This sentiment is shared by many and philosophers are sympathetic. But what you are describing is a rigid logical argument which is only one way of deconstructi
by unabst 11y ago
This sentiment is shared by many and philosophers are sympathetic. But what you are describing is a rigid logical argument which is only one way of deconstructing something. And this essay would not be as effective or may not even be possible if it were purely logical. The sense that you describe of not being able to tell if a statement is wrong is the agent and it can be thought of as mere intuition. But through the exploration of said intuitions, light is shed onto what was never shed upon before. This is the only requirement of philosophy. They are observational raw thoughts. Of course being so raw has it's disadvantages. It's vague and often unscientific. It's argumentative word play which does have a way of tripping some nerves.
- LouisSayers 11y agoUmmm... If you're going to make an argument and you aren't applying logic to that argument, then it is really not an argument worth having! Philosophy does not invite vagueness because it's philosophy - quite the opposite when I recall taking a philosophy logic class at university. Being vague is simply sloppy. If you can't write concise thoughts which clearly communicate your intention, then I for one am not going to bother reading it.
- unabst 11y agoIt is vague to those seeking logic. To those exchanging intuitions it is not vague at all. The United States is conscious is concise. The logic behind it is weak but the intuition is there, which is what matters. And from here the debate can begin as well as scientific inquiry and logical scrutiny -- all unfolding only to deepen our understanding of what is right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, real or imaginary (basically whatever your interests). Just count the comments here. A job well done.
- eli_gottlieb 11y agoIntuition is no guide to truth.
- foldr 11y agoIt's a guide to truth all right, just not one that's 100% reliable.