So, what has been officially settled...

In metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics?

Is there ANYTHING that is virtually agreed upon as settled by all philosophers?

In answering this question, it is important to distinguish between true philosophers and pseudo philosophers.

True philosophers recognize the relationship between ontology, epistemology and ethics, that ontology is the foundation for epistemology which then derives ethics.

Pseudo philosophers, people who use the word “philosophy” as an excuse for their utilitarian moral relativistic coping mechanisms, have a tendency to ignore even the very existence of ontology in deference to epistemology, as ontological realities fly in the face of their attendant sophism.

Philosophy has determined one thing and one thing alone: what will not work.

“Man is the sum of his errors”- Fritz

You’ve done nothing but compartmentalize greek words. All these are interchangeable and mean nothing. That’s the business of philosophers; juggling nonsense and word-games.

Blind me with science, Sabrina. I have no time for philosophers.

I thought the business of philosophers was to think…?

Personally, I think that there has been too much emphasis on the ‘thinking’ end of philosophy. The origins of the practice in ancient culture was an amalgam of how to live as well as why are we here and why does this or that happen.

I think that the latter half has been rather successfully co-opted by science, which does a far better job at producing meaningful answers to those questions . . . but the former seems quite neglected.

Sure, developing a wonderful epistomology which allows you to refocus the lens of history is great, but to what end? Philosophy isn’t an end unto itself, but rather a means for shaping humans into what we ought be.

Philosophy oughn’t be learning to think, but rather learning to be human.

So, do these pseudo-philosophers know that they are pseudo-philosophers?

That nothing is agreed upon is agreed upon–otherwise known as subjectivism.

I like this, and agree with it but I think that philosophy’s purpose is somewhat different than that. Philosophy seeks to dehumanize the philosopher so his perception of self and of other is not skewed. In a way, they do try to see what humans are in relation to what’s thought of as non-human, but they do so by dehumanizing themselves. In short, philosophers seek to see man, and everything else, as ‘God’ would.

Don’t you have to think about what to do to know what to do?

That isn’t subjectivism. It just means that if there is objective truth we don’t know it yet.

Unless I’m mistaken, subjectivism states that objective truth cannot be perceived by a subject.

Ummm… No. And I’m not entirely sure that’s a fair question.

It’s not the job of philosophy to find some unified absolute. In fact, more than half of philosophy is comitted to the idea that no such thing exists.

I’m not too sure what the one-true-purpose of philosophy should be, but I’m pretty sure it’s not to stake a claim to absolute truth and end the discussion once and for all.

… And even further off the mark…

I’m not sure I want to get into any sort of argument with anyone who’d utter such an incredibly arrogant and myopic claim, but that take on the state of philosphy seems more than a little snotty. One must be pretty high-minded to unilaterally dismiss most people’s contributions as pseudo.

I certainly wouldn’t claim to be that clever or that objective.

What you would claim about yourself is immaterial.

I thought “pseudo” to be quite apropos.

That you seem to think that “most” people fit that description is interesting.

I guess maybe most people ignore the basics of what true philosophy really is.

The “why” of their ignorance is for the reason I gave.

Right. But not everyone agrees that such is the case. So not everyone agrees that subjectivism is true, whether it is or it isn’t.


What do you mean by a unified absolute? I was asking if ANY question was settled, not whether it was possible to settle all questions in some kind of systematic way. Unless you are Hegel and believe that the two are identical.

Then my guess would probably be a “no”

No. The “philosopher” was an evolving class during primitive forms of despotic civilization. Society functioned with ordinary language quite well until a new class, the sophists, threw a wrench in the clock-work and fucked everything up. The sophists were like a hybrid form of ruling class elite and religious clergy. Their function was to persuade and subordinate the working class with rhetoric so they remained stupid, affraid, and complacent. The king hired the philosopher to do his dirty work. The philosopher was the first form of media in civilization.

The best and worst thing that has happened to mankind is language.

Since understanding requires action and action generally preceeds thought, no.

We’ve generally already made our decision before we start thinking about it, so the act of ‘thinking’ something out is generally a flawed concept. Instead we need to habitualize proper actions (and thereby thought).


Sometimes they know as a result of it being pointed out to them.

Sometimes they know just by reading a real philsopher’s presentation.

Sometimes they know because in the wee small hours, after they’ve waxed pseudo philosophic, perhaps after they’ve had their head handed to them in response, then, when they’re alone, all by themselves … they know … and, they know why.

sigh Marxism is so boring.