Is philosophy no better than politics?
  • RegularGuy
    2.6k
    Having participated in this forum for about a month, I'm beginning to suspect that my reasons for giving up discussing philosophy with people after I graduated from college may be justified. I find time and again that philosophers can't agree on basic premises; and if we can't even agree on basic premises, then our grandest conclusions have little value for the opposing team.

    So what to do from here? I may finish up by posting in a couple of choice threads to bolster my positions on these topics, but after that I may no longer take part in this forum. I plan to act out my philosophy in life with the people I encounter, but I will try not to persuade others to my point of view. People tend to perceive attempts at persuasion as a kind of evangelism that they must resist because they hold their beliefs so dear, being a part of their perceived identity. Perhaps I am guiilty as well, sometimes moreso than at other times, but perhaps that is unavoidable.

    It's been fun and I enjoyed MOST of the discussions I've taken part in, but I fear that this endeavor is fruitless. I wish you all well, and I hope you get what you need from this forum.

    Best,

    Noah
    RegularGuy Options
  • RegularGuy
    2.6k
    I've decided to stick around. I simply have nothing better to do. ;)
    RegularGuy Options
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.1k
    Having participated in this forum for about a month, I'm beginning to suspect that my reasons for giving up discussing philosophy with people after I graduated from college may be justified. I find time and again that philosophers can't agree on basic premises; and if we can't even agree on basic premises, then our grandest conclusions have little value for the opposing team. — Noah Te Stroete

    Do you not agree, that exposing "basic premises", analyzing them for meaning, and determining the differences in belief which exist between us, at this most fundamental level, is a worthwhile activity? Forget about producing some grandiose theories built upon the consensus and agreement of others, consider fleshing out the reasons why this is impossible, the lack of agreement in the basic premises.
    Metaphysician Undercover Options
  • RegularGuy
    2.6k
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    A sincere thanks to you, sir. I’ve given it some more thought, and I’ve realized that each of us has a perspective that I/we can learn from. It’s not about being right all the time. It’s about growing as a person, and I think this is the noblest aim of philosophizing. I have fallen short at times, but I am not perfect. Thanks again for the wake-up call. I needed that.
    RegularGuy Options
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.1k
    Yes, the aim of philosophy is understanding. But notice how "understanding" is a multifaceted concept, and part of that is a sort of empathy. So when it comes to the point in philosophical discussions, where we cannot agree on basic premises, we have reduced "understanding" to a point where sympathy toward the other is the only meaning that we can give to this word. And so we understand each other without reason, logic, or agreement, but through some sort of feelings.
    Metaphysician Undercover Options
  • RegularGuy
    2.6k
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    I like that
    RegularGuy Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories