As we look throughout all of history of philosophy we see numerous counter stances on philosophical issues that are inferred purely by logic and reason, aside from any set of values the individual philosophers may have. As such you can agree or disagree if the philosophy is logical and perhaps even pursue it further by believing more into it than any other, yet when there is an alternative that is logically valid it must be taken into consideration that whatever we hold dear may not be the end all… As such a valid philosophy will keep this in constant consideration at all times never swaying beyond what it is, a possibility, and delve into claiming truth and authority over an other possible logical inference. However, scientific findings may follow us to a more surer route to an objective truth in matters as such these things should be taken into consideration in a rational manner that understands scientific facts in a manner of what they are… our best explanations for why things occur the way they do, which of course is always limited in its explanation.
With this being said, most current philosophers today would have no disagreements on any issues if they followed the correct paths of philosophy. Of course humans aren’t perfect and will stray from this ultimate logical realization of philosophical issues but typically if fundamentally sound in their logic will understand corrections, which oft would be minor adjustments to their thoughts and adapt accordingly. As such all humans who delve into philosophy should be finding the logical consensus that is possible through human thought on these logical philosophies taking into consideration all of the above.
There really isn’t much to debate if valid philosophy is obtained and understood logically. Explanations often will occur yet disagreements among philosophers will always mean someone or both parties is(are) incorrect or misunderstanding. No human is correct all of the time yet it is not reasonable to understand that a final complete philosophy of past logical inference can be recorded succinctly and correctly in a definitive format.
Now are there any disagreements or agreements with the above? Why or why not? Thanks for reading.
My general comment would be that, while I appreciate the relevance of formal logic, I think there’s room for forms of expression in philosophy which are not predetermined by the need to be logically consistent or to attend exclusively to immediately rational thought patterns. Nor, in terms of a philosopher’s (or anyone’s) personal narrative, is there necessarily a need to attend only to one system of thought, or any “system” at all. I enjoy the blender experience, myself. Some, of course, would insist that such is therefore not philosophical. But others wouldn’t. I guess one determinant in this regard is whether one is looking for answers or questions, conclusions or processes, destinations or journeys…
I don’t understand your whole post, but if you are arguing that a complete and true philosophy would not contain any logical inconsistencies, then I think you are entirely correct.
Of course, any sound premiss is negatable: this is a logical necessity. So the axioms of any sound philosophy would have logical negations. But I don’t think thats what you meant.
I probably understand why you might think so, and in some senses would agree with you. However, I think the point is worth further discussion.
As, so far as I’m aware, we have yet to come upon an instance of a “complete philosophy”, it would be perhaps utopian to expect that philosophical pursuits necessarily be aimed at attending to a fully comprehensive approach. This is not to dismiss all attempts to do so, just to restrict it as a general requirement. Rather, there is also legitimate concern for providing an “ongoing” philosophy, which attends to it’s own historical situatedness, for instance, and seeks not to provide completion of thought but simply relevance to the present, and acknowledges that even contradictory perspectives may nonetheless be legitimate. I would suggest that, at least in that sense, “delving into belief” can be a proper, even if messy, aspect of philosophy.
If there is credence to that observation, then what are we to do with the concept of a “valid philosophy”? I agree that from a pure logical perspective, the notion of systemic consistency is relevant and thought-worthy. But even from that same perspective, would not “invalid philosophy” nonetheless still be philosophy, and a potential source of contributions (given the practical impossibility of a complete philosophy)?
Short answer is that they’re not mutually exclusive, and neither ought we necessarily expect science to envelop philosophy (though the contrary view might well be a legitimate philosophical perspective, of course).
Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.[3] The word is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία, philosophía, “love of wisdom”.[4][5][6]
Which means religion and philosophy are exclusive.
Not to be protean, but I wholly agree your’s is a well respected philosophical position on the matter. However, as an empirical issue, would you admit that the question is less than resolved in the field? For instance, some would say that mysticism and mythology are not equivalent with religion, and that much of theology is quite remarkably systematic and reasoned. In any case, if I were to wiki-up “Philosophy”, what do you think the chances are that I’d find ample evidence to support “this side” of the debate? (I’m presently at home with my son who threw up just before going to school, so I’ve got time to if you want )
Absolutely the field of philosophy in academia at least seems to stymie itself and perhaps we should look at why that is… If you think you can find evidence to support your side of the debate of things deemed “Philosophy”, I wholly agree you would by examples… yet I wouldn’t agree that you would find valid premises and logical process to back those examples.
Any logical inference that can not be negated. Solipsism seems to fit the bill on a more extreme manner, regardless of the probability. To understand this philosophy would not mean that we must assume it to be true which it is likely not and as such cannot necessarily be negated yet cannot be verified.
So, to clarify, going down the portraits in the margins of the Wiki page on Philosophy, which of the philosophers’ philosophies do not have logical inferences that cannot be negated? Are you refering to “whole philosophies/philosophers” (eg. Kierkegaard/existentialism), or to specific acts of philosophizing?
I agree 100% with all that WW_III has written on, what I think, is one of the most important issues in philosophy. It is in it’s self a highly logical starting point in any philosophical system, the creation of agreed logic, and I also feel there should be some attempt at structuring logical absolutes that are excepted as truth until otherwise proven. All the debating is pointless unless there is a mutual goal in mind, ie, what, how and why. I’m also a reluctant solophist, I still hold out hope that a more logical notion will occur to me, but I doubt it possible.
Aren’t there many literary forms that do have logical inferences and can be negated? Are they all philosophy?
But you seem to be implying that, as we are still in an “attempt” stage in this regard, Philosophy thus far is not yet valid philosophy (?) I think, again, that there might be something of a Utopian expression involved here, which, don’t get me wrong, isn’t therefore a bad thing… But, as a question of what the “logical starting point in any philosophical system” is concerned, that starting point isn’t within the system itself, it’s in the history of the tradition.
On solipsism - wouldn’t it be logical that we do exist and view reality subjectively as best we can and must take things as how we perceive them or we could DIE!
The key as I stated earlier is logical inference, not logical literary forms as you have just brought up.
As far as your response to jamie - the history of tradition should be irrelevant… why? Because today we understand the earth isn’t flat. or that it isn’t the center of the universe. but of course we (humanity) generally accepted these… Why should philosophy be any different in its ability to proceed and strive on?
I think it’s more logical to assume that there is just one individual. That individual cannot die in any eternal way. There exists a negative quality to conscious existance, and this would go some ways to explaining it in a logical way.
)