h_k_s wrote: ↑December 7th, 2018, 3:33 pm
jkim0231 wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2018, 10:03 am
I have a question. What is philosophy(non-rhetorical)? It seems to be that it is a pursuit of something that is less false? (something similar)
For example, I had a chance to read the introduction to Sartre's Being and Nothingness. He explained the theory that an object's true essence being beyond the manifestations of the object had embarrassed modern philosophy for its critical problems, and that the new way for philosophers came to consider this essence was to see it as the whole of all it's manifestations. (example of pursuit of some kind of better theories)
Maybe I have the wrong notion for "truth" for this thread, but is not truth something that can be verified? But as I read in this thread, I understand how truth may not be verified but by language, but then confirmation by belief seems persuading too. Then what is it that philosophers pursue, when they formulate and publish their thoughts? Is it something different from what I asked above? That they pursue something that better explain topics in their field? If with the belief that truth is an aspect of language, what are philosophers that believe this in pursuing?
From this it seems that acknowledgement of some apple by a monkey-man leads him to grab it and eat it, had "truth" anything to do in this incident(without me intervening to talk about it)?
As I wrote, some ideas tossed in this thread became more clear. I've been regurgitating on them, but any input will be welcome.
Youre going to need to read more than just one book to get a sense of what philosophy is.
h_k_s wrote: ↑December 9th, 2018, 9:57 pm
jkim0231 wrote: ↑December 9th, 2018, 11:43 am
I mentioned some lines in the book to explain my question. My question is not "what is philosophy?" My question regards the topic of the thread.
Writing (posts) requires special skills to avoid confusion.
I have noticed that Philosophy in general pays too much attention to language in many cases. So I always try to simplify any language that I use in any situation including Philosophy. It is a procedure I learned from dealing with international business experts who are not necessarily very well grounded in the English language.
I'd say, the language in philosophy is inevitable, that in simplifying the language, you do not make philosophy simple. The language of philosophy, is an inevitable result of simplification. However, this is pure speculation based on considering many other sciences which also are not free from simple language.
I thank you for your interest in my aptitude. However, I would rather appreciate replies on the topic, "truth"(you had some good ones about language), rather than your opinions of my qualifications. I could, for instance, mention that confusion results from underdeveloped thought process, but that would be off the topic as well as probably being false, and would only suggest my inability to condone others, which is very often a sign of sense of inferiority of self. I believe this to be important in attaining better understanding, since one is able to consider many more possibilities when he is free from such impulses that make it difficult for him to accept different thoughts that challenge his own.
@H_k_s, I will clarify my post for you.
1. I mentioned a part I read in Sartre as an example of philosophers' will towards better theories. There efforts seemed to suggest their belief of something more true.
THE QUESTION: what are philosopher's pursuing when they try to change theories to make them better(they seem to be intent on avoiding fallacies), while sometimes proposing truth to be a thing of language?
2. But as @hereandnow mentioned, truth is a trait of language. (This was a new thought. I understood it, and accepted its plausibility. Since, I always know that many beliefs I hold are just that--beliefs, I have no problem considering my question with this new idea.) It did, however, complicate things as I thought about my original question.
3. Then there are ideas about belief, and how truth may not be bounded by language. The monkey-man example is my thought process on trying to determine the nature of truth.
4. So, in formulating my question, I thought about the initial debate on the nature of truth.
5. Consul's post that followed answered my question.
jkim0231 wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2018, 6:47 pm
Consul wrote: ↑November 30th, 2018, 4:37 pm
"I'd like to emphasize, cannot indeed overemphasize, the tentative nature of what I present here. Philosophers may not like to admit it, but fashion is an important factor in philosophy. And once fashion comes in, objectivity goes. The reason is rather obvious: philosophy lacks the wonderful decision procedures that are present in logic and mathematics (proofs) and the natural sciences (observation and experiment, together with mathematics). Unfortunately there seems to be no remedy for this situation, and those who thought there is a remedy, such as the logical positivists, learnt bitter lessons. But since this is so, we philosophers should be appropriately modest."
(Armstrong, D. M.
Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. ix)
"One moral that I draw is that in the fields of philosophy and religion there is no knowledge. We can only know what our beliefs are. For consider: In these fields there is no consensus of opinion about what is true. People who are intellectually competent to discuss these matters, who have genuinely studied the considerations for and against some view—the existence of God or the existence of universals—who know the arguments, who have read and understood the books and the articles—find themselves in complete disagreement. Surely we should not claim knowledge in these matters. We all have our hopes. Perhaps some of us do have knowledge about these difficult matters. But how can we have any rational assurance that we do have knowledge? It is prudent, and suitable to our nature, to claim no more than belief."
(Armstrong, D. M. "A Naturalist Program: Epistemology and Ontology."
Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73/2 (1999): 77-89. p. 82)
This answers my question
This post by Consul also reiterated the importance of humility in all ventures since,--this is also a famous saying too--the more you know, the more you realize you don't know anything.
@h_k_z I hope this clears any confusions you have had.