It appears as if the metaphysical theory of determinism is self-evident. But if everything is pre-determined by a previous cause, then doesn't that reduce to fatalism? And if the will is also subject to deterministic causality then how can the will thwart the inevitable?

I agree that determinism is intuitive for us in this scientific age. But I do think there are holes in the notion. I also agree that if we accept determinism, this might contribute to fatalism, but this doesn't isolate us from the burden of decision.

To know the future is settled is not to know the future.

It appears as if the metaphysical theory of determinism is self-evident. But if everything is pre-determined by a previous cause, then doesn't that reduce to fatalism? And if the will is also subject to deterministic causality then how can the will thwart the inevitable?

Therefore, there is at least one case of a philosophical question having a definite answer, and a true or false answer, too.

Some like to deny that is possible.

Is philosophical knowledge any different from scientific knowledge? Isn't there only one kind of knowledge?

Is philosophical knowledge any different from scientific knowledge? Isn't there only one kind of knowledge?

I don't think I said that there was philosophical knowledge. But there are philosophical questions. And here is one definite solution to one of them.

Or don't you think that the questions, what is the difference between determinism and fatalism, and is fatalism true or false, are philosophical questions?

I'm sorry . . . I didn't mean that you were saying that there was philosophical knowledge. I'm trying to understand the difference between a philosophic question and a scientific one. The ruling epistemology for philosophy is empirical or positivistic and the same goes for science. I suppose that philosophy is more about utilizing logic to arrive at a coherent conclusion, while science is more about empirical study. I still, however, don't understand the difference between a philosophic question and a scientific one.

Well that's another philosophical question. But aren't philosophical questions about philosophy, and isn't the question, what is fatalism, and how does it differ from determinism a philosophical question? At least I don't think anyone would ask it but a philosopher. It is certainly prima-facie a philosophical question, isn't it. I don't think it is discussed in many science classes.

I understand that . . . But I don't understand why some people think philosophical questions can't be answered. Philosophic questions utilize logic to arrive at a corresponding or coherent conclusion. What's the difference between not believing that philosophic questions can't be answered and believing that 1+1 doesn't equal 2?

I think that the hallmark of a philosophic question is its 'metaness' and the use of logic versus empirical study to solve them. Does that sound right?

I think that some people conceive of philosophy as consisting of some vague and nebulous questions about how to live life, or discussing something like whether there is absolute knowledge or absolute truth, or questions about what they call, "totality". Of course, these questions are so designed as to be unanswerable. Just look at what people post in threads here. And, some not only do not utilize logic, they obviously disdain logic. Or they have only a very vague idea of what logic is all about, and even that idea is often wrong, People often have very bizarre ideas about the nature of philosophy.

Philosophic questions utilize logic to arrive at a corresponding or coherent conclusion.

I agree. I can't stand when so-called philosophers disdain logic and clarity in favor of obscurity.

I agree. But I think we should also acknowledge the creative element. Logic needs material to work with.

Obscurity is relative to the critic. I will grant that logic and clarity are ideal for some purposes.

I see two angles of attack on "logic and clarity." On one hand you have the transcendent position which is similar to revelation/mysticism/faith. On the other hand you have those who are passionate about logic and clarity to such a degree that they want logical and clear conceptions of logic and clarity. It's easy to mistake the two. I'm not saying that you have. But on another thread I saw Hegel accused of being a mystic, which seems to me an utter misunderstanding of his intentions.

I think that some people conceive of philosophy as consisting of some vague and nebulous questions about how to live life, or discussing something like whether there is absolute knowledge or absolute truth, or questions about what they call, "totality". Of course, these questions are so designed as to be unanswerable. Just look at what people post in threads here. And, some not only do not utilize logic, they obviously disdain logic. Or they have only a very vague idea of what logic is all about, and even that idea is often wrong, People often have very bizarre ideas about the nature of philosophy.

Logic doesn't require creativity. The creative element of philosophy is to be found in the axiological fields.



Logic doesn't transcend human practice, but it does transcend human perspective & opinion. Logic is axiomatic, so when I say that 1+1=2 It's no different from saying that you+me=2 human beings. Is that not true?