My solution to the philosopher's truth dilema

[Genkai]

This question has been gnawing at me for a while until that aha moment I had last night. The question was what is the point of philosophy if we cannot know everything therefore making our claims and theories more of a ideological bet. Maybe we are looking at philosophy from a skewed perspective. In reality the concept that we could be completely or partially be correct about something must be prevalent among many philosophers. However how do we as philosophers deal with this possibility of it all going to waste? I don't think it is necessarily a waste especially if you as a philosopher cherish those moments of deep contemplation and they made you happy. The reason I say this is because I think of life as a dream. We all think we are correct based on our beliefs of the world around us. We act with strong emotions, love, hate, compassion yearning and what not. I mean think about it, we are always going to be wrong as long as we are humans. Even if you are correct about all your philosophies, there is a whole other world of things you have yet to explore, our limitations mean that we will always live a life of lies and uncertainty in one aspect or another. I think we should be willing to embrace the ignorance, because there is nothing wrong with doing so. However doing as such would mean that we are living in our own bubbles of reality. You can try to fight it by saying I will never give in to the ignorance! or you're just looking for an excuse to be lazy but in reality there is NO way to avoid the fate of ignorance. You choose, a life or endless resistance against the unavoidable or will you give in to the unavoidable. Tell what you guys think. Try to poke holes in my argument please..

[Philip2]

As you seem to implicitly acknowledge, every single person acts in a way that they implicitly, or even explicitly, take certain things to be true. Even the person the claims that no objective truth is possible, dismissing the fact that it is also self-refuting, would seem to have a lived contradiction between what they say they believe and how they actually live.

Honestly, you can't take the extreme in either case here, as in most things--you can't rationally hold complete skepticism, but then you also can't hold complete 100% certainty in regards to any truth outside the fact that one is having an experience (as many have pointed out).

So we are left somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Ultimately, the best principle for any area of study, including philosophy, is to hold as true the belief/theory that currently is the most coherent, consistent, and comprehensive. Coming to any knowledge is much like building up a court case, we gather evidence in many different ways and we should accept what is most true beyond a reasonable doubt!

I like to call good philosophy "common sense on steroids", though it is fun to entertain the crazy extravagant theories, we should finally hold as true the ones that takes into account, and coherently explain, the things we experience in our very normal day to day lives.

[Genkai]

As you seem to implicitly acknowledge, every single person acts in a way that they implicitly, or even explicitly, take certain things to be true. Even the person the claims that no objective truth is possible, dismissing the fact that it is also self-refuting, would seem to have a lived contradiction between what they say they believe and how they actually live.

Honestly, you can't take the extreme in either case here, as in most things--you can't rationally hold complete skepticism, but then you also can't hold complete 100% certainty in regards to any truth outside the fact that one is having an experience (as many have pointed out).

So we are left somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Ultimately, the best principle for any area of study, including philosophy, is to hold as true the belief/theory that currently is the most coherent, consistent, and comprehensive. Coming to any knowledge is much like building up a court case, we gather evidence in many different ways and we should accept what is most true beyond a reasonable doubt!

I like to call good philosophy "common sense on steroids", though it is fun to entertain the crazy extravagant theories, we should finally hold as true the ones that takes into account, and coherently explain, the things we experience in our very normal day to day lives.

I disagree I think some people just want to stay in ignorance and never do philosophy knowing that they are wrong but still enjoying it, i guess I'm making a case for the unexamined life. If living this sort of life brings you bliss and happiness I say go for it, because like any other philosopher or human being he will be wrong on so many things. Like I said for the unexamined life there is still value. It's like a dream world or fiction world where we are the main character. This is dream world or fiction world is unavoidable to all, philosopher or not.

[Vijaydevani]

I think we should look at philosophy as a search for The truth. Whether we find it or not is immaterial. It is the process, which teaches us things about ourselves which we did not know. To me, philosophy is just a means to become better at gaining control over my emotions, so that I can become more dispassionate about everyday life decisions I take. I also think that while discussing a philosophical topic, my focus should be on finding what others have to say, rather than proving myself right because that becomes an exercise in ego boosting. I also believe what Genkar said is absolutely true. "Ultimately, the best principle for any area of study, including philosophy, is to hold as true the belief/theory that currently is the most coherent, consistent, and comprehensive. Coming to any knowledge is much like building up a court case, we gather evidence in many different ways and we should accept what is most true beyond a reasonable doubt!"

The toughest thing to do has so far been accepting an idea that challenges everything I believe in. Genkar's statement is the doctrine I follow. I do not mind if something comes up which changes all my philosophical beliefs. There is nothing wrong in being wrong. People have been doing it all their lives. Why should I be any different?

To me the greatest advantage of philosophy has been the steady erosion of my ego. The need to be right has now receded to a great extent and that has been a truly liberating experience. Now life is just about learning and being wrong is just not a big deal anymore. If philosophy is just about learning everything there is, then it can become a burden. If philosophy is something that makes my life a little less complicated with the passage of time, I think it is time well spent.

[Belinda]

Philip2 wrote:

Even the person the claims that no objective truth is possible, dismissing the fact that it is also self-refuting, would seem to have a lived contradiction between what they say they believe and how they actually live.

But even philosophers are human beings, subject to the conditions of staying alive, and so even philosophers have to find time to breath,eat, and make other decisions regarding their sheer existences.

In this case, everybody, even philosophers, have to draw the line over which it is impossible for human minds to venture. Philosophy is a mirror that reflects the point at which this line must be drawn. I like metaphysics as much as anyone, but metaphysics enthusiasts too in the course of nature have to draw the line before interminable regressions of what we can or cannot know.

[Luisgmarquez1985]

"the unexamined life is not worth living in" - Socrates

to go about your life without examine just what exactly the kind of life you are living in, what exactly you are doing, why you are doing it, has no value, simply a void. Yet people do this on a constant basis. to think critically about things requires a great deal of effort and many prefer not to be bothered about it, either because of other more important responsibilities or just out of laziness. they takes things for granted but believe otherwise.

However, as humans we are limited and you are right Genkai to suggest that humans, and especially philosophers should accept that in which we are ignorant about. For a person to know what he/she knows and what he/she does not know is to know thyself and know what your strength and weaknesses are, including how to handle certain trepidations However, because we are aware of our limitation that does not mean we should not attempt to know the truth.

Yet as you stated Genkai, to think critically is to find resistance. being ignorance brings comfort within a society, which for many philosophers is a luxury.