The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.
This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
d3r31nz1g3 wrote: ↑November 19th, 2022, 12:13 pm
The questioning of what most people assume to be standard and how our most basic assumptions are actually, in truth, questionable.
Yes! This is a favourite one of mine too. To question the things we just take for granted, often without serious consideration.
Even just to realise that a particular thing is an axiom — a guess; assumption — and not a proven foundation for further reasoning.
Synthetic a priori judgements are axiomatic. There is little use arguing about whether or not our human faculties are sufficient or insufficient, because our human faculties are as they are. Synthetic a priori are as they are.
Our work as philosophers is to know the difference between synthetic a priori arguments and unthinking prejudices.
d3r31nz1g3 wrote: ↑November 19th, 2022, 12:13 pm
The questioning of what most people assume to be standard and how our most basic assumptions are actually, in truth, questionable.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 20th, 2022, 10:06 am
Yes! This is a favourite one of mine too. To question the things we just take for granted, often without serious consideration.
Even just to realise that a particular thing is an axiom — a guess; assumption — and not a proven foundation for further reasoning.
Belindi wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 7:00 am
Synthetic a priori judgements are axiomatic. There is little use arguing about whether or not our human faculties are sufficient or insufficient, because our human faculties are as they are. Synthetic a priori are as they are.
Our work as philosophers is to know the difference between synthetic a priori arguments and unthinking prejudices.
I don't disagree, but my point was a simpler one. There are guesses, assumptions, and axioms buried in our thinking and reasoning, and it does no harm to recognise these things for what they are. [Sometimes, we might even discover that one of our guesses is wrong, in the sense that it does more harm than good to our thinking, not just being 'wrong'.] But the main benefit that I see is simply recognising that something we thought was solid and dependable because it was somehow 'proven', is actually just a guess.
d3r31nz1g3 wrote: ↑November 19th, 2022, 12:13 pm
The questioning of what most people assume to be standard and how our most basic assumptions are actually, in truth, questionable.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 20th, 2022, 10:06 am
Yes! This is a favourite one of mine too. To question the things we just take for granted, often without serious consideration.
Even just to realise that a particular thing is an axiom — a guess; assumption — and not a proven foundation for further reasoning.
Belindi wrote: ↑November 21st, 2022, 7:00 am
Synthetic a priori judgements are axiomatic. There is little use arguing about whether or not our human faculties are sufficient or insufficient, because our human faculties are as they are. Synthetic a priori are as they are.
Our work as philosophers is to know the difference between synthetic a priori arguments and unthinking prejudices.
I don't disagree, but my point was a simpler one. There are guesses, assumptions, and axioms buried in our thinking and reasoning, and it does no harm to recognise these things for what they are. [Sometimes, we might even discover that one of our guesses is wrong, in the sense that it does more harm than good to our thinking, not just being 'wrong'.] But the main benefit that I see is simply recognising that something we thought was solid and dependable because it was somehow 'proven', is actually just a guess.
aawemainu wrote: ↑November 29th, 2022, 11:43 am
Materialism fills me undescribable pleasure. Realism takes that pleasure to ethereal heights.
Belindi wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 10:25 am
I don't think the question was meant to be limited to sensational pleasure.
I suppose, if the pleasure is gained from some aspect of philosophy, it would fit my title and intent, but I see what you're getting at!
I am well aware the philosophies that please me the most accord with my confirmation bias. I'd admire a philosopher who can be completely objective but I don't know if such an animal exists.
The use of hermeneutics according to Hans Georg Gadamer is by way of Platonic dialogue, and phronesis ('practical wisdom'). Please see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Gadamer) on Platonic Dialogue and phronesis, near the beginning of the entry just after the biography.
Belindi wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2022, 10:56 am
I'd admire a philosopher who can be completely objective but I don't know if such an animal exists.
I suspect that such a thing would not be an animal at all, but an AI, or similar machine. A philosopher such as you describe would surely not be human? I don't think any human could be considered to be "completely objective". No human that I've met, or heard of, anyway.