Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Question

formatting and punctuation
Source Link
Mark Andrews
Mark Andrews
  • 6.5k
  • 5
  • 23
  • 41

This is maybe kind of an odd question, and it's related to my metaphysics controversies question.

In philosophy (to be honest mostly in metaphysics, but also in philosophy as a whole), it seems like many philosophers can make entire philosophical works and develop ideas without a certain set of rules that restricts them (like there is, for some obvious comparison, in natural science) - even. Even logic, which intuitively seems to be the thing that'll take the restriction part, isn't necessarily restricting- philosophers. Philosophers can stretch its boundaries, rewrite them and create their own logic system, and even claim their philosophy isn't in the boundaries of logic. This pretty much means a philosopher can do whatever he wants to build his own philosophical system -system; he doesn't even have to claim for the system's objectiveness.

My question would be, is such criticism (not necessarily bad one) against philosophy true? (maybe that's a different question-) is the only thing that makes a philosophical system acceptable/"true" (I don't want to get into the argument of "true" systems, so "acceptable" is the preferred term here) is social acceptance of the system? Can a philosophy "aspire" (not necessarily positive) to reach science' "objectiveness" (a debatable objectiveness, but at least more than can be said about social acceptance)? And on a side note (tell me if I should delete this as it invites personal opinions), should philosophy "aspire" for such "objectiveness"?

  1. My question would be, is such criticism (not necessarily bad one) against philosophy true? (maybe that's a different question)

  2. Is the only thing that makes a philosophical system acceptable/"true" (I don't want to get into the argument of "true" systems, so "acceptable" is the preferred term here) the social acceptance of the system?

  3. Can a philosophy "aspire" (not necessarily positive) to reach science's "objectiveness" (a debatable objectiveness, but at least more than can be said about social acceptance)?

  4. And on a side note (tell me if I should delete this as it invites personal opinions), should philosophy "aspire" for such "objectiveness"?

This is maybe kind of an odd question, and it's related to my metaphysics controversies question.

In philosophy (to be honest mostly in metaphysics, but also in philosophy as a whole) it seems like many philosophers can make entire philosophical works and develop ideas without a certain set of rules that restricts them (like there is, for some obvious comparison, in natural science) - even logic, which intuitively seems to be the thing that'll take the restriction part, isn't necessarily restricting- philosophers can stretch its boundaries, rewrite them and create their own logic system, and even claim their philosophy isn't in the boundaries of logic. This pretty much means a philosopher can do whatever he wants to build his own philosophical system - he doesn't even have to claim for the system's objectiveness.

My question would be, is such criticism (not necessarily bad one) against philosophy true? (maybe that's a different question-) is the only thing that makes a philosophical system acceptable/"true" (I don't want to get into the argument of "true" systems, so "acceptable" is the preferred term here) is social acceptance of the system? Can a philosophy "aspire" (not necessarily positive) to reach science' "objectiveness" (a debatable objectiveness, but at least more than can be said about social acceptance)? And on a side note (tell me if I should delete this as it invites personal opinions), should philosophy "aspire" for such "objectiveness"?

This is maybe kind of an odd question, and it's related to my metaphysics controversies question.

In philosophy (to be honest mostly in metaphysics, but also in philosophy as a whole), it seems like many philosophers can make entire philosophical works and develop ideas without a certain set of rules that restricts them (like there is, for some obvious comparison, in natural science). Even logic, which intuitively seems to be the thing that'll take the restriction part, isn't necessarily restricting. Philosophers can stretch its boundaries, rewrite them and create their own logic system, and even claim their philosophy isn't in the boundaries of logic. This pretty much means a philosopher can do whatever he wants to build his own philosophical system; he doesn't even have to claim for the system's objectiveness.

  1. My question would be, is such criticism (not necessarily bad one) against philosophy true? (maybe that's a different question)

  2. Is the only thing that makes a philosophical system acceptable/"true" (I don't want to get into the argument of "true" systems, so "acceptable" is the preferred term here) the social acceptance of the system?

  3. Can a philosophy "aspire" (not necessarily positive) to reach science's "objectiveness" (a debatable objectiveness, but at least more than can be said about social acceptance)?

  4. And on a side note (tell me if I should delete this as it invites personal opinions), should philosophy "aspire" for such "objectiveness"?

Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/968931024003588098
Source Link
Yechiam Weiss
Yechiam Weiss
  • 4k
  • 1
  • 17
  • 37

Can we do anything we want in philosophy?

This is maybe kind of an odd question, and it's related to my metaphysics controversies question.

In philosophy (to be honest mostly in metaphysics, but also in philosophy as a whole) it seems like many philosophers can make entire philosophical works and develop ideas without a certain set of rules that restricts them (like there is, for some obvious comparison, in natural science) - even logic, which intuitively seems to be the thing that'll take the restriction part, isn't necessarily restricting- philosophers can stretch its boundaries, rewrite them and create their own logic system, and even claim their philosophy isn't in the boundaries of logic. This pretty much means a philosopher can do whatever he wants to build his own philosophical system - he doesn't even have to claim for the system's objectiveness.

My question would be, is such criticism (not necessarily bad one) against philosophy true? (maybe that's a different question-) is the only thing that makes a philosophical system acceptable/"true" (I don't want to get into the argument of "true" systems, so "acceptable" is the preferred term here) is social acceptance of the system? Can a philosophy "aspire" (not necessarily positive) to reach science' "objectiveness" (a debatable objectiveness, but at least more than can be said about social acceptance)? And on a side note (tell me if I should delete this as it invites personal opinions), should philosophy "aspire" for such "objectiveness"?