The Unsolvability of Philosophical Problems

Has anyone noticed that philosophical problems are usually unsolvable? I’ve been looking at different key philosophical problems, and I’ve noticed that there are some patterns. Wittgenstein said that philosophical problems are essentially problems of language, but I think that there is more to it than that. I think that philosophical problems are more like paradoxes; there appear to be answers, but the further you look and the more you try to get an answer, the further away you end up from finding a solution. There seem to be several reasons for these paradoxes. Yes, problems with language are what’s at work in some cases, but, from my research, that might be only one of the patterns that I’ve noticed.

Take the question of whether our behaviour is determined. Determinists believe that we don’t have free will; because our minds, like all things, are controlled by cause-and-effect, and because our minds make our decisions, we have no control over our decisions; our decisions are subject to the laws of cause- and-effect.

To me, figuring out whether our behaviour is determined is an unsolvable problem. First of all, it assumes that our minds are subject to the machine-like laws of cause-and-effect (i.e., that nothing random can happen in nature, and, further, in our minds). To me, this would seem to be a problem of science - perhaps psychology and neuroscience. In this way, this philosophical problem is meaningless because it’s not a problem that philosophy is fit to answer. On the other hand, even if it turns out that determinism is true, then the problem that we seem to have free-will but are really determined is only based on a misconception; it is a problem because we make assumptions about free will because things seem a certain way to our mind, but are different in reality. Still, it would be no problem at all - only a misconception about the way things really are.

In general, I’ve noticed a fixed number of certain patterns that keep popping up. For example, the problem above is similar to the mind-body problem in that it is a problem best-suited to scientific inquiry. It is also similar to the question of whether other people have minds, because it rests on certain common-sense - yet unprovable - assumptions.

I almost want to write a book that takes a look at most of the major philosophical problems and puts all of them into more general categories, explaining why each one is unsolvable by virtue of the category it belongs to; if you can show how a philosophical problem is unsolvable, then I would think that the need to solve the problem should disappear. However, I don’t know if this has ever been done before.

Jason

check out mortimer adler

-Imp

the unsolvability of philosophy problems lies in the fact that they are not really problems. most of these “problems” and “paradoxes” are sematic manipulations (like the Surprise Quiz paradox) and faulty reasonings (like the Flying Arrow Paradox)… and the ones that are not, are just vague, formless absurdities, or meaningless crap that no one would take seriously, except for a philosopher (“if i DONT think, then am i NOT…??? OMG I JUST DONT KNOW!!!”).

they do not come up with real problems to solve, like a mathematician or a scientist; philosophers just try to out-do each other by coming up with ever-more convoluted linguistic tricks and ‘abstractions’ which bear no resemblance to anything at all.

ask a philosopher if a tree makes a sound when it falls and no one is around; ask him how many ducks there are in the world at this instant; ask him whether you are alive or not, or whether you live in the matrix, or what the “being-in-itself of the being of a true being’s being is in being-in-time” is… just dont ask him what 2+2 equals, or what day it is, because not only will he not know, but he will cover this ignorance by inventing more “problems” such as “what is a number anyways?” or “how can i trust my memory to tell me what day it was yesterday? what if an evil demon altered it? or maybe im in a possible world where time RUNS BACKWARDS!! holy crap, theres just no way to tell!”…

if you want certainty or solvability or practicality or any answers at all, im sorry to tell you youre in the wrong “academic” field.

yes, never a mundane moment, it’s wonderful - or something to get indignant about - depending on your personality type . . .

Science seeks to solve problems far “all”. Philosophy is rightly concerned with finding answers for oneself.

But it is true that some problems are better served by scientific inquiry.

I believe these unsolvable problems are the result of an incompleteness.

We are constitutionally unequipped to solve them.

determination > machine like > in goes without data > out goes the response to the without data > computer

free-will > in comes the data from the without > thought > response > adjustment if necessary to the first response because of thought , psychology and Reason and then the implied logic because of the Reasoning

Actually, this is the purpose of philosophy, to pose answers to un-answerable questions.

No, we can’t measure the morality of an action, no we can’t know if we have free choice, no we can’t know if god exists… but we try to answer these questions because we want them to HAVE an answer. By using logic, we can come to conclusions about problems such as these. Even if we can never truly prove our answer.