Why can't we get philosophy together people?!

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Lately, I’ve been curious about the reasons why we can’t all agree on the soundness of certain logical arguments like we do mathematical derivations. Math is thought to be flawless because its content is always clear (i.e. it consists of well-defined elements like numbers and operations, etc.) and all derivations that stem from it are incontestable (i.e. mathematical proofs are not subject to opinion).

It has also been shown that propositions can be transcribed into formal logical notation (such as “If P then Q. P. Therefore Q.”) and rules of operation can be determined for the manipulation of this notation that mimics the rigor of mathematics. Why, then, do we not have a method for deciding whether philosophical arguments (which ideally should have a logical structure) are sound or not? Why does all philosophical discourse usually end in both parties agreeing to disagree? One would think that all such arguments can be transcribed into the formal notation and the matter can then be settled once and for all. So why do the same old topics come up over and over again? This never happens in mathematics. Why, if we have a formal method akin to that of mathematics, does it happen in philosophy?

My gut instinct tells me the primary culprit is our emotional attachment to the propositions we put into discourse. I also think it has to do with our drive to link our propositions, arguments, and conclusions to the real world, whereas in mathematics, all statements are understood to hold independently of the real world - that is, that mathematics finds its justifications internally.

What do others think?

2

I believe it is because mathematics is in many ways a closed system with all terms defined. Where as philosophy is completely open, with presmises that often struggle to be defined, much less verified.

3

That’s my thought as well.

4

Gib - I will agree with one statement you make - that people tend to have emotional attachments to their premises.

We can judge the soundness of arguments. Unfortunately, many here wouldn’t know a valid argument if they tripped over it, however. And most disagreement is in the premises.

But there is more to it.

Many here are arguing politics in the guise of philosophy. That is, their motive is politcal.

The great debates over just what an atheist is, is an example. The minimal definition of an atheist is one who is not a theist. Everything else is politics. Few on either side of the debate seem to realise this.

Our propositions are linked to the real world. Or they are not. There is nothing wrong with propositions describing the world. If they don’t, they are useless. They are the content, and logic, when used, is the form.

There are “arguments” other than deductive ones, however. This would involve a nontechnical usage of the word “argument”, but many here do not realise that “argument” is even a technical term.

Back to the debate about atheists - even the very premises are often confused. Theists here often will say “well, you atheists do have beliefs” - seemingly not realising that this is entirely irrelevant. Here, the premise isn’t false - it’s just not pertinent to the argument. Any argument can include superfluous premises, as written. Good arguments don’t. A great many arguments here contain a great many superfluous premises. That makes it difficult.

Philosophical argument requires technique. But many think that all they need to do is to “be smart”. That no technique is required.

Correcting any of this won’t really help, though. As long as people don’t understand the english language (in this case), and are even capable of questions like “Is nothing really something?”, we will never have genuine philosophical debate, much less agreement.

5

I also agree with the emotional attachment, if not also a financial one.

Other than that, I think the problem is not in the logical operators, but in definitions. How often do you debate definitions when you’re supposed to be talking philosophy? 1 + 1 = 2, but if you say, “If blue then green,” some bastard will say, “What do you mean by green?” Words are deeper than numbers, they carry many different meanings and connotations.

6

Well, Anthem, the financial attachment is often the political one.

The philosopher is free to use stipulative definitions. But when others don’t know what a stipulative definition is, they can’t know when one is being used. It is also cumbersome to continually explain the conceptual paradigm in which an argument is being made. Reference to a famous philosopher should help identify the paradigm being used (just what “green” means, for instance) as can reference to generally accepted technical terms. Again, if others don’t know these philosophers or terms, these devices are of little help.

When you’re talking to a lot of beginners who refuse to learn “neutral” technique, debate is difficult.

No one here would debate the relative merits of Hendrix and Clapton without having heard them both. Many here feel unconstrained by this sort of requirement when debating Nietzsche and Spinoza.

7

Humans inherently are emotional beings. It might be hard to totally seperate emotion from reason and logic. It would seem emotion may have triggered the topic we are discussing. I don’t want to equate myself to a calculator. We should leave esoterical emotion out of discussions and stick to the meat of the matter and not fly off into name calling laced in ranting.

8

Yeah, Litenin’ - philosophy is hard.

9

I have no disagreements with this. It’s surprising how few realize this though, even in the midst of engaging in it themselves.

10

Yeah, it would be nice to have our philosophical discourse in a rational, professional, dispassionate style. But, unfortunately, when I see a piece of crap Nietzshe quote like that in someone’s signature line, I feel the rise of an emotional state. It manifests as a fantasy about running the poster over with a heavy piece of road grading equipment. I could probably take the time to defend my reason for doing that rationally…but truth is, I just want to push the “on” button and hit the gas, so I never have to be subjected to that BS again on here. Such is the stuff of Internet dreams. I know it’s a dream, because I know there’s not enough time and not enough road graders in this world. :slight_smile:

And we maintain a boy’s free speech, but perhaps lose one more chance for reasoned discourse, such as it ever was.

11

Although I sympathize with all of your sentiments, it’s rare for anyone to agree on a logical premise because each individual desire to express his/her will to power over others. Logic, rationality, reasoning, aren’t applicable to the individual who just desires to dominate.

12

They’re just tools after all, aren’t they?

13

Yeah…lost a good friend over this.

14

Wow, that must have been some debate :astonished:

15

Yeah. She was incapable of letting defintions go. She would say something that was on her mind, and I would try and repeat it back to her in language I understood. Then she would say no, and repeat what she said. She thought that definitions were these precise tools, and they’re not. There’s connotation and context…I was using allegory and simile to understand and she found that unacceptable.

To use the language of our own Faust, I got tired of explaining to her that we were using the conceptual paradigm of friendship.

Sorry to pat myself on the back, but I like that last sentence on soooo many levels :laughing: Faust gets it.

16

It would also be easy for people to get together if we were all raised the same , the same culture, the same social status, the same experiences wthin all of that. All of the above plus, causes us to view things with different perspectives, emotions do not have to be involved, just what experience has taught you from your life’s travels.

17

Extremely refined ‘tools’ of the will to power.

18

Humanity is too diverse to get their philosophical shit together, but I’m sure they can come together and have a civilised chat over a rum and a game of dominos - that’s how we do it in the Caribbean :wink:

Ego may well be a barrier to the reconcilliation of philosophical differences… Adverse discourse then becomes rhetoric, and thoughts are expressed without debate being attached.

19

interesting , since logically one would think that 1+1 = 2 and yet using mathematics alone the equation cannot be proved . mathematically

it is Reason that is lacking in thought or thinking

20

Philosophy does, at least one branch; science. The reason overall philosophy doesn’t do this is because it isn’t a truth-seeking engine with setin fail-safes.

For example the majority of the people on this site aren’t concerned with objective truth or truth at all, otherwise they’d spend less time posting and more time actually reading real science and incorporating that, as a main building block, into their ‘philosophical outlooks’

People who do otherwise rant and rave about a monopoly on truth, well I have an anwser for you; join the wagon or don’t pretend your driving one down the road.