My subjective statement: ‘Philosophy 101’ was simply an indication of memory functioning. That is, ‘I think therefore I am’ was a trip back in time to Philosophy 101, the classroom, the professor in living color. It was not: ‘academic philosophy [insisting] that 'I think therefore I am,' is subjective…’ — ArielAssante

:up: ok.

As I already typed Tom, I have no recollection of every typing the phrase, 'skepticism is self-refuting.' — universeness

Never said you did. I'm just joining in a general discussion. :wink:

Never said you did. I'm just joining in a general discussion. — Tom Storm

Crossed lines then.

So, what are debates about? Seems like: my philosophy is better than your philosophy.

What do you think? — ArielAssante

When it gets to debates or arguments between members then often it seems to boil down to 'my reading of the text/s is more nuanced (or more useful) than yours.' With texts all we have are readings, interpretations and re-interpretations.

There are clearly communities of intersubjective thought which share presuppositions and values. Is this a problem for philosophy? Are you looking for a meta-narrative (an account of truth or reality) which will subsume all other thinking?

Philosophy consists mostly of normative principles (i.e. prescriptions), suppositions (i.e. thought-experiments), evaluations (i.e. interpretations of statements), aporia and other non-propositional expressions ... which are no more "subjective" than e.g. mathematical theorems or Shakespearean tragedies which are also "only in the mind".

Skepticism is not self-refuting - absolute or global skepticism is self-refuting and probably psychologically impossible. More conventional skepticism is how science generally works. — Tom Storm

:up:

:smirk:

In a nutshell philosophy is subjective but it values the objective and atempts to be so; a sinner trying to be a saint; the irony, o the irony!

But all that you have said here is that what you choose to believe is down to you.

But all that you have said here is that what you choose to believe is down to you. — Banno

Well, what I've said isn't something we aren't already familiar with (re novacula occami + other qualities (seemingly) unrelated to truth such as beauty, elegance vis-à-vis the scientific method).

De gustibus non est disputandum vs. the PSR.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The key word is more. Is ‘more nuanced’ better? — ArielAssante

Yes, I put those key words there for a reason.

You ask is this a problem for philosophy? How could it be a problem for an abstraction? — ArielAssante

Most thought is abstraction. And yet there are better and worse ideas, so I see nothing wrong here.

Interaction with others is a way to uncover the structure of my own “prison”. — ArielAssante

So you are looking to uncover the 'limitations' of your own ideas, based on your understanding of other's ideas?

This is completely subjective and selfish but that does not mean others may not benefit. My own journey has been informed by many. Some I’ve never met or even seen. In fact, Tom, your question has been very helpful. Thank you. — ArielAssante

How do you fell your subjective journey has been helpful to others? Has it changed you in a way that others my benefit?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

That you say this without revealing the reason strikes me as deceptive, or game playing. — ArielAssante

So here is why I said it in its full context again.

When it gets to debates or arguments between members then often it seems to boil down to 'my reading of the text/s is more nuanced (or more useful) than yours.' With texts all we have are readings, interpretations and re-interpretations. — Tom Storm

What bit is missing for you? I'm simply reporting on how these debates strike me.

You do not appear to have used your 'nuance' skills to understand what I wrote — ArielAssante

Or you have been unclear. On philosophy sites it is not unusual to have a conversation to gain clarity, right?