...disagreement is what keeps us going. — Ludwig V

I can't resist the urge to reply "No it isn't!" — Banno

:rofl:

I'm not a philosopher, I'm wondering is there a single philosophical question that has been 'answered' definitively for eternity? — Tom Storm

On the surface, the answer is probably No.

But that depends on how you define the questions. Arguably, what happens is that an answer that works in one cultural and intellectual environment will seem inappropriate or inadequate in another and so the question is re-framed and re-interpreted.

There's an old saying - or possibly a quotation whose source I've forgotten - that it is differences of opinion that make horse races. And when there's a winner, the race is over. My point is that it is differences of opinion that make philosophical dialogue - and reflective dialogue is the heart of philosophy.

I'm opposed to people who think that the questions must have a final answer - especially when they think they have found it. It leads to dogmatism and squashes dialogue. Perhaps I should have distinguishes between answers, which shut down dialogue, and responses, which don't.

There seem to be a lot of people around who worry about the lack of "progress" in philosophy. I'm suggesting that the demand that philosophy makes progress by providing conclusive answers is only one view and that there are alternatives that perhaps should be better developed.

I don't know how philosophy will develop, but I'm sure that it will continue in one way or another - for better or worse.

My perception of the nature of philosophy keeps changing. — jgill

I'm not clear whether you think that's a bad thing or a good thing. I suppose it could be either, depending on why it changes.

It is also possible that philosophy can be seen in more than one way at the same time.

I can't resist replying "Yes, it is!"

My perception of the nature of philosophy keeps changing. — jgill

I'm not clear whether you think that's a bad thing or a good thing — Ludwig V

As a math person (retired) sitting on the sidelines, I am beginning to appreciate the dialectics, the vitality of the practice. The thought of being wrong in an interesting way has a charming appeal. :smile:

The thought of being wrong in an interesting way has a charming appeal — jgill

It certainly stuck in my mind. It also gives on another target to replace the ever-elusive Truth and helps with destructive anxiety.

So let me offer you another insider remark that I've never forgotten. A professor well known for his contributions to logic once confided in me that he understood Gödel's famous argument, but didn't believe it. (!) Thst's a consolation for people like me who find logic very difficult.

The thought of being wrong in an interesting way has a charming appeal — jgill

It certainly stuck in my mind — Ludwig V

Years ago when I was still somewhat active in the research community I published a paper on an unexplored topic. I proved a theorem, but with heavy hypotheses. A year or so later a colleague published a similar paper, based on mine, and proved a much, much nicer theorem - minimal hypotheses. So, in a sense, I was "wrong" to assume more than was needed, but wrong in an interesting way.

A professor well known for his contributions to logic once confided in me that he understood Gödel's famous argument, but didn't believe it. (!) That's a consolation for people like me who find logic very difficult. — Ludwig V

My first grad course in math back in 1962 was an introduction to foundations and set theory. It was pretty neat how we (doing homework exercises) started with the empty set and ended the course with a definition of the exponential function. But beyond that, only perhaps two students out of a class of maybe 25 found the remainder of the subjects attractive. Even the young and enthusiastic professor recommended most of us stay away from the topics in the future.

Gödel's results are reflected in only a very small number of research themes.

Years ago when I was still somewhat active in the research community I published a paper on an unexplored topic. — jgill

Yes, that would be a good example.

Gödel's results are reflected in only a very small number of research themes. — jgill

I'm not surprised. Those results, in my uneducated view, are pretty devastating for mathematics as we know it. Philosophers are probably more inclined to take his theorem seriously. But most of them are inhibited because they don't want to grapple with and are not qualified to grapple with mathematics (or should that be metamathematics?)

The point that I've not forgotten is that the orthodox philosophical claim that logic provides arguments that everyone will agree to is false. Yes, there is a penalty, supposedly. If one withholds assent from a sound argument one is guilty of inconsistency or something. Which is true. But that professor did not seem to be suffering any serious ill consequences.

Those results, in my uneducated view, are pretty devastating for mathematics as we know it. Philosophers are probably more inclined to take his theorem seriously. — Ludwig V

In fact, a large majority of mathematicians go their merry way, ignoring the incompleteness thing. Although it's in the background - like being struck by a meteor while playing golf - it is inconsequential to most research. I think you are correct in that it is a more important concept for analytic (set theory/foundations) philosophers.

What you say reminds me of what Hume says about radical scepticism - he calls it Pyrrhonic. Everybody will continue on their merry way, despite not being able to disprove it. Indeed, he recommends everyday life as a good cure for it.

I was wondering if any academic philosophers visit this forum as I am interested in some content that can be provided by them. — Shawn

-I hope not....except of course if we they are Naturalists(methodological).

I am somewhat saddened that the logic and philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science categories never receive much attention or forum posts.
What can be done about that? — Shawn

-That's so true! Since your mentioned Philosophy of Science( I love this category), are you familiar with Paul Hoyningen's work on the Philosophy of Science(Systematicity, the Nature of Science). If yes, could you share some thoughts on his ideas on Science not being something special but still enjoying such an epistemic success!

@Dfpolis has published papers, given lectures, and written a book. By chance I happened upon his work long before I became a member on this forum. I think he was a theoretical physicist, though.

NOS4A2,

Thanks for the mention. Yes, my degree is in theoretical physics, but I have published more in philosophy. A new paper was recently accepted: "The Hard Problem of Consciousness and
the Fundamental Abstraction," which will appear in the Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research.

In the other hand, Guest Speakers was a good idea to ask academic philosophers to join TPF and answers some questions. — javi2541997

I'd seriously recommend moderators look into this idea. It wouldn't even need to be something they create an account for, there could be a guest account set up by moderators for the occasions these guests are here. Almost like having a guest on a YouTube live pod or something where people can engage in discussion with them. Maybe a specific topic that the guest philosopher is an expert in or published a paper on and the discussion starts out with people reading that before engaging in the discussion.

That would, in my opinion, be a seriously good use of a forum like this that elevates the philosophical experience for everyone.