Does philosophy need proof and what exactly is proof?

deletedmemberdp

When philosophising one is attempting, through analysis, to reach the truth. Whether that agrees with the current truth structures is immaterial. The truth needs to be obtained by clearing one's mind of all the nonsense that has been built up in a lifetime and that includes the esoteric so called truth as we know it. Truth being one's own version rather than The truth. Proof is muddying the waters as it is created by the senses which simply restricts what is known. Restricting the quest for truth, surely, is exacerbated by this proof which always ends up as theory when someone else discovers something new. Proof will only allow you to "see" the present as it is seen and not what is actually there and as always been there.

Book273

philosophy does not need proof. Proof would constitute fact. Philosophy is truth and theory oriented, not fact based. Truth is based on perception, therefore perception is truth. I perceive a cat before me, therefore there is a cat before me in truth. However, as "cat" is a label applied to describe a particular creature, should that descriptor be applied be an alternate culture to something else, for example, what I consider to be a "rose", then when a person of that culture sees a "cat" they are seeing at cat in their truth and a rose in mine.

Pantagruel

↪deletedmemberdp

You are proposing that truth requires the elimination of error in one's previous conceptions, including possibly presuppositions. That's a very solid and traditional claim. How you get from that to "proof muddying the waters" isn't clear to me though.

So I guess what you're saying is, "I can't offer any proof for my claim that proof is counter-productive". In which case, I answer "since I can't follow your reasoning that proof is counter-productive, it seems evident that proof is not counter-productive."

CallMeDirac

As has already been said, Philosophy is not fact, it is mainly thought experiments to better understand human nature. If you wanted fact you should study psychology, Philosophy is a very complex science and if it were to use fact would destroy the very study.

prothero

From Betrand Russell The of Philosophy:
http://www.paulgraham.com/valueofphilosophy.html#:~:text=Philosophy%2C%20like%20all%20other%20studies,convictions%2C%20prejudices%2C%20and%20beliefs.
The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

Pussycat

Wow, these topics regarding philosophy - metaphilosophy - keep springing up like mushrooms, huh, maybe it's this time of the season.

On topic now, philosophy does not need proof, but @180 Proof ! :halo:

Does philosophy need proof and what exactly is proof?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions