The Right philosophy

Why everyone thinks there right and everyone else is wrong.

They think this because they are right, there is no wrong. For example abortion, it depends on your morals, ethics etc whether you think abortion is legal. The same goes with the death penalty, religion, just about everything. Its just one big arguement over who has the better opinion.

What is the purpose of philosophy?
Make that what is YOUR purpose of philosophy?

Because if you become aware that you could be wrong, everything becomes uncertain. Uncertain makes you unable. That’s why we need certainty, and belief that we are right.

Purpose of philosophy is knowledge. Knowledge that you can’t know all, induces doubt, and that makes life quite uncomfortable. Comfort over knowledge?

Why would uncertainty imply inability? It could be the other way around; reaching the point when you no longer know could be the start of something really weird

It’s impossible for everyone to be correct on every matter, just as it is impossible that no one ever be wrong. Allow me to demonstrate.

Person A believes that X is true.
Person B beleves that X is false.

If everyone is always right as you stupidly purport, X is both true and false.

To use a real life example, you think that no one can ever be wrong. I think that it is possible for people to be wrong. In this, I cannot be found to be at fault. For, if I am right, then my statement is true, but if I am wrong, then I thereby affirm my statent by showing it is possible that to be wrong. So, in either case, I am found to be right. If I am right, then you are wrong (even further upholding my proposition). If you are wrong, then it is again shown that it is possible that people are wrong.

Thats funny INoNothing, many people I meet are relitavist and don’t meet that description. Indeed, in certian issues like morality, most people I meet have a relativistic attitude. I usualy attribute this to the fact that they have never studied such issues and have little clue other than that they have inherited from certian empiricist- who they wont even bother to study. So, who are these people you are talking about, and how can I meet them?

Just becuase certain people believe something, that does not automatically qualify that belief as being true. Whether you believe it or not, in a base 10 numeral system, 1+1 will always equal 2. Something as simple as an opinion does not determine what is ethical. Opinions only become worth our time when they are accompanied by supporting facts and/or arguments. The statement “Abortion is wrong,” means nothing and is irrelevant without some context; it must be supported by more than a mere thought. For some retarded reason, some relativists feel that everyone’s opinion is just as good as anyone else’s. Not so. Some opinions can be supported and verified, whereas others are just wishful thinking.

What is the difference between opinion and belief? They seem similar to me. Neither are true or false. It is my opinion that philosophy is an excellent academic subject. I cannot prove that philosophy is excellent, though it may be. This would not necessarily make my opinion true(several people, unfortunately, would disagree with my opinion.)
I believe that I am typing on a computer. Perhaps I am, but it does not necessarily follow that my belief is true. By the time this is read, the aformentioned belief will necessarily be falsified, as I will have to stop typing in order to send this post.
What do you think?

superstrongsteve wrote:

I’m of the opinion that I am happy this morning. I can’t back up my opinion with facts and/or supporting arguments. Would you say that such an opinion is worthless?



I think you can.
It would go something like:

People have direct access to their feelings, and are readily aware of their emotional states barring certian unusual conditions.

People are also redicent to lie, barring certian unusual conditions.

By definition, I am not likely to be in such unusual conditions.

So, ceturus perebus- my feelings are what I report them to be.

I report “I am happy.”

Therefore, It is likely that I am happy.

I don’t care much about right and wrong. All i know is we suffer. And that there is a cure for suffering → Buddhism.

Thats my way of dealing with these questions :smiley:.

To Polemarchus:
I would agree with LostGuy when he says that supporting information can be provided to persuade us to believe that you are happy. While it would be rather tough, if not impossible, to prove for certain whether or not you are truly happy, it is easy to provide evidence to transform a baseless claim into a probable statement. And now to answer your question. If your opinion is not supported by any evidence, then, to me, it is worthless. I don’t know you. I’ve never spoken to you. Your emotional state this morning is of no concern to me.

Hello Lost Guy,
I said:

You replied (in effect) that a first-person belief of an emotional state is supported by a first-person belief of an emotional state; which is the very point that I’m making. A first-person belief of an emotional state is a self-supporting belief. No other fact is required to corroborate such a belief. The belief alone is a necessary and sufficient support for the belief. In other words, if I believe that I’m happy then it’s true that I’m happy.

Steve wrote:

The example we’ve just been discussing clearly refutes Steve’s statement. My belief that I’m happy automatically qualifies my belief as being true.


I disagree that a first-person belief of an emotional state is self-supporting. The other day I noticed that the girl that sits next to me in class was crying. Her friend later told me that it was because she was upset about a recent breakup with her boyfriend. I asked “Are you all right?” And she replied “Yeah, I’m fine.” Even though she was sad, she denied it. It is quite easy for someone to say that they are happy when in reality they are not. Just because one says something, that doesn’t make it so.


You are confusing a belief for a report of a belief.