That is a very good point of view Kennethamy!
I never thought of it like that before. Do you bieleve that the first person who defined H20 did not think of what it should be named at first? I would have thought, that they would have thought of it just as many of us when we make up a username on this forum. I have been wrong many times before. I guess that is why I am the least among you great thinkers.

That is a very good point of view Kennethamy!
I never thought of it like that before. Do you bieleve that the first person who defined H20 did not think of what it should be named at first? I would have thought, that they would have thought of it just as many of us when we make up a username on this forum. I have been wrong many times before. I guess that is why I am the least among you great thinkers.

H20 means that there are 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom. So it wasn't decided by anyone that water would be H20. The words "water", "hydrogen" and "oxygen" were made up at some point, but someone using different names would still come to the same conclusion about water--what its molecular makeup looked like, and what that implied about its chemistry.

What sort of things are in that grey area?

Is number discovered or invented? What is the status of metaphysical materialism in light of quantum theory? Does Darwinism constitute a philosophy of life or is it simply a biological theory? Do the platonic forms have any basis in reality, or are they purely subjective? Is first-person experience irreducible or can it be explained in terms of neurophysiology?

Now I don't want to debate those topics here. They are perennial topics on the forum. The point is that none of them admits of crystal clear resolution. In each case, there are strong arguments to be made on either side.

What sort of things are in that grey area? Are they neither philosophical arguments nor non-philosophical arguments? Or are they both philosophical and non-philosophical arguments? It just seems to me that something is either an argument or it is not and argument. Philosophical arguments are no more a special kind of argument than chemical arguments are a special kind of argument. The first deals with philosophy; the second with chemistry. And, an argument is, as you would expect, an argument.

If philosophy is characterised by its subject matter, then it is not restricted to rational argument as its only permitted mode of discourse. If, on the other hand, philosophy is characterised by rational argument being its only permitted mode of discourse, then it cannot also be characterised by its subject matter; therefore it would presumably have to include chemistry, and all other subjects, which seems silly. I don't know of any field of study which is characterised both by having a special subject matter and a special way of discoursing upon that subject matter. Does philosophy have such a dual characterisation? If so, is it a special case, or have I failed to think of another example? Mathematics, perhaps, but I'm not even clear as to how that field is characterised. Perhaps both mathematics and philosophy deal, in their different ways, with concepts. (I think you have said so of philosophy.) Aren't there useful ways of talking about concepts other than by having rational arguments about them?

No one claims that philosophy is restricted to rational argument. Just read a few posts on this forum, and that will disabuse you of that idea. The claim is that philosophy ought to be restricted to rational argument.

Indeed, I thought that that was what seemed to be your view, and that was the view I was addressing. I'm surprised you thought that that was not what I meant, because no field whatsoever could possibly be "restricted to rational argument" in the sense in which you quite rightly observe that no-one claims that philosophy is restricted!

I suppose that I have actually made a bit of a blue here, actually. Thinking about it some more, what I had originally intended was to say that there are some arguments about which it is difficult to ascertain whether they are in the subject area of philosophy or not. Now of those examples I have given, some are metaphysically vexed question, and others are questions which are now on the borders of the subject.

I am not sure what you mean, but I think that all philosophers should present arguments for their views, and, of course, if they are going to argue, they should present rational arguments.

Metaphysically vexed questions are still questions of metaphysics, and so are in philosophy. About questions that are borderline philosophy questions, I think if arguments are going to be presented, they should be rational arguments. I am in favor of rational arguments in all fields.

I agree with that last bit. Bad (i.e. irrational) arguments should be criticised. But not everything need be an argument. Or so it seems to me.

But see that is just the thing. Some people will just assume their argument is rational when it probably isn't. Not to mention that some just assume that others accept their premises to be truths when they have never provided anything for proofs of these premises. So sometimes you can't even have a rational discussion with someone who is not using an agreed upon basis or foundation for discussion.

I don't know what you have in mind by "everything". My sandwich need not be an argument.

But it seems to me that when a philosopher asserts something is true, that he should be willing to back it up. And the only way I know of to back of what you assert is with an argument. Do you know of any other way. Or maybe you think it is all right to assert what you cannot, or do not want to, back up.

That is not true, since if someone does not agree that something you think is true you can present an argument to show it is true. The question whether an argument is rational is a different question from whether the premises are true. An argument can have true premises and be an irrational argument.

What if I just say, no it's not that way? Are we having a rational conversation?

Is number discovered or invented? What is the status of metaphysical materialism in light of quantum theory? Does Darwinism constitute a philosophy of life or is it simply a biological theory? Do the platonic forms have any basis in reality, or are they purely subjective? Is first-person experience irreducible or can it be explained in terms of neurophysiology?

Now I don't want to debate those topics here. They are perennial topics on the forum. The point is that none of them admits of crystal clear resolution. In each case, there are strong arguments to be made on either side.

An opinion: and then philosophy is as much about QUESTIONS as it is about answers. Questions open doors.

Thank you!

Many issues have no easy answer, as you say, and this is why they are living exciting issues. They are challenging. A living dialectical clash is still to be found and enjoyed there.


An opinion: and then philosophy is as much about QUESTIONS as it is about answers. Questions open doors.

This is a key point to why philosophy cannot be confined to rational argument. Most philosophizing involves little to no ration arguments. Much of it is about asking question, observing, and finding answers or new questions. It is also critical thinking. Critical thinking can be totally irrational, but can lead to rational thoughts that end up in a argument in the future.

So to say that "philosophy ought to be restricted to rational argument," as Mr. Amy did is to define philosophy too narrowly, and thus, incorrectly. In fact, very little of the philosophical process is rational argument. Most is observation and critical thought.