One thing I have noticed in these philisophical discussions is that some people in their search for truth seem to turn away from it in order to see if they can find a deeper understanding of it. In other words if there are people who have ideas or theories on what they believe to be the truth or a process to discover truth people may find faults with these theories and criticise what they believe to be untrue, presumptuous or incomplete and this I believe to be great, that these criticisms are meant to bring us closer to an ultimate truth.
It is when people harshly criticise ideas which they themselves have no alternatives too. Then I believe they are simply being disruptive to a discussion, as while they are making criticisms of ideas, theories and presumptions (or what they believe to be presumptions) they themselves are making their own assumptions on the other end of the spectrum of what is “not true” when back by little to no evidence (for ex. “There is no such thing as truth, Gods, etc.”).
There is no escape from preconceptions or faith when you have or are stating your opinion, The only other alternatives are to be absolutley indifferent to ideas, beliefs and opinions (if that is possible) which no philosopher can be as it would be opposed to the interests and duties of a philosopher, or to have an omniscientifical understanding of everything,(which I believe to be impossible) which one would have to be God in order to do.
Why should I have to possess a proposed solution or alternative idea in order to critique someone’s ideas or assertions? Finding fault with something need not necessarily involve replacing it with something “better”, and in fact this need for “solutions” or “Well so you come up with a better idea then!” is a rediculous limitation in our thinking.
And “indifference to ideas”, in the sense of being objective and not motivated by emotion, ego or psychological investment/need is absolutely essential to “being a philosopher”. If we lack the capacity for indifference then we lack the capacity for philosophy.
You misunderstand what I mean by this type of unhelpful crticism, it is not so much “well what’s your idea” so much as it’s what’s the logical basis for your criticism.
Of course one need not offer an opinion after they have criticised someone elses , but I believe it would create a better understanding for the basis of these criticisms.
When I say an indifferance to ideas, I mean the unlikeliness that someone could voice a criticism of someone elses perceived “truth” while they themselves would have no notion of what “truth” is themselves. Which leads me to think that they themselves have an opinion but are not confident enough to propose it.
I agree with the OP, if we want a better understanding of the world, we have to build up true doctrines as well as tear down false ones. If we focus all our efforts on tearing down, we can’t really improve our understanding of the world, we can only avoid misunderstanding it.
Fascinating sonnen, may I ask how did you arrive at these conclusions about me, how is it you’re able to read me so well, better than I can read myself?
Some girls need to be told the truth about themselves, I only tear down so I can build up, you misinterpreted, ours is a constructive criticism. Would you have me lie to them instead? ? ?
OP here is a paper that makes your point, (a bit stronger and more articulate I believe), but that’s neither here nor there. I have a tendency to agree w/ it. Let me know if it interests you at all. Enjoy!
To my mind absolute scepticism (Descarte’s Demon etc) is the mirror image of all quests for an absolute truth - you want that particular shimmering mirage then you’ll have to put up with a sort of smeagol-like creature with you at all times cutting the grounds out from under you.
Pyrrhonian skepticism or various forms of limited /determinate negativity seem to be the way to go for me - as beautifully deployed by Montaigne for example - questioning directed to widening your perspectives.
We must confess that we do not fully and finally know anything at all, but practically and provisionally know more than we ever can imagine Vincent Colapietro
Criticism in philosophy tends not to be based in “here is my notion of truth, thus you are wrong because…”, although it can certainly take this form. More often it involves simply exposing the logical flaws in the other’s position. One need not have a formal system or grounding “notion of truth” in order to recognize a logical inconsistency or flaw/error in another’s thinking.
Of Course, but that is what I am stating in this Idea of “Overskepticism” is that this type of critism seems to be taking the form of “here is my notion of truth, thus you are wrong because…” except that they do not state their notion of truth and so it merely seems disruptive and not at all like helpful criticism.
For instance someone will pose a theory and someone else will criticise it though it hasn’t been shown to be wrong, but it is open to criticism as it isn’t provable as absolute fact. Yet instead of critisising the gaps in the theory or trying to build on whats been proposed, someone will denounce the entire theory because it hasnt been shown to be absolutly true. Which shows they most likely have there own ideas of whats true but are not confident enough to propose it (perhaps they believe there own ideas to have gaps), if they did propose it perhaps some of the gaps in each theory could be filled or one will be shown to be superior to the other and of course one way to discover truth is to disprove lies and falsehoods. That I see as a much more productive way to convers but that cannot happen unless people implement their ideals in the conversation.