I perfectly succeded at doing so, just that you refude my evidence.

Immediately one might object to the parts, in particular part B. They might say that Western Philosophy is too much to take in all at once, better still throughout the course of ones life. In essence it would be a burden to exhaustively go through the annals of Western Philosophy and read every one who has contributed to the subject proper. This objection will be answered with the presentation of the method itself.

I find this a fascinating topic. I have one objection to your method though which I'm sure can be solved when the method is further clarified.

What if you have a problem where there is a genuinely reasonable disagreement between two differing views. In pluralist society today we see so much of this and can be easily informed as to these cases where it seems both sides are reasonable. It is also in these cases where consequently I would think a history of western philosophy would not be able to do everything for you, because pluralism didn't matter back then.

I agree with your method insofar as the nature of the argument reduces to a problem of communication, but I'm not so sure that all problems can be reduced that way. Not to mention, when it comes to ethical problems there are constraints which limit one's ability to deal with the problem even if it could be reduced to a matter of proper elucidation, clarity, and communication. There's the problem of having to act out one's decisions, and not only that, but doing so under a time limit. There's the problem between the aesthetic experience and objectively applying its role in ethical decisions.

There is also the problem of how do we know we ourselves in the argument aren't constrained as to how we can communication with each other. No matter how much ingenuity, how can we know that there aren't trains of thought that both of the opposing parties aren't able to comprehend but which are necessary to solving the problem through ingenuity. This is essentially what happened when Mill tried to argue in favor of women's freedom and equal rights.

Another question I have is what does this method assume about the nature of how a problem -of a philosophical nature, which is something we'd need to know the meaning of- is solved. The way you put it, a question is raised and then it is trumped by the direction of another question that comes after through elucidation and logic. So it is not necessarily about solving the question? I would agree with this, if by the definition of a philosophical question we mean a question which directs us to the right way to seek the clarity one needs to relieve himself from a former lack of insight. But then this limits philosophical questions to the completely subjective or at least theoretical, and ethical problems need some sort of solution and practice.

Another point I wish to raise is that in a debate where a decision has to be made there is inevitably the need to understand an argument's or a perspective's place in the outcome of all the argument. For example, to what extent does religion play a role in the decision that the state must make in an ethical decision? You might say, well now we're abandoning philosophical grounds. I suppose what I would say in reply is, what philosophical grounds really are there? When this happens, when there has to be a decision or a solution that has consequences which must be 'objective', does this necessarily imply that all perspectives must show the respect of objective consideration? And I think it is here where psychology is useful. Psychology gives us an insight as to where a perspective is coming from, and what its cause is such that we can objectively consider what respect that perspective deserves. In this way we can ultimately make an objective decision when it is a political situation, and when it is a philosophical situation, we can derive how to proceed (and how not to) from what history has shown us about the behavior the 'progress' of questions in philosophy has been.


EDIT: Please ignore this post Ding, I just realized it's not what you were looking for, lol. I was way off. Unfortunately I can't do much logic yet.

Philosophy, aside from its foundation in Logic, has at its core questions that cannot be sufficiently answered (or questions that we do not think can be answered). But this begs the question, as we pressupose that these questions cannot be anwered simply because we know they cannot.

Interesting post, Ding.

An issue I come across when attempting to talk philosophy from a classical, western perspective is the "black and white" mindset that seems so pervasive. For example,



I think there might be a third way in which you can posit the inability of mortals to determine objective reality, without falling into question-begging. A simple admission of ingnorance.

"as far as I can tell, non-omniscient being are incapable of objective observation, and therefore, objective knowledge."

This way, the statement is a theory, a belief, rather than a stated "fact".

Although, this could just be semantic wrangling to ease my psyche about my hypocricy!

The subject always presupposes the object, and conversely.

I wish more people understood this point. There are many debates on the forum about 'the mind-independent reality' of the universe. I maintain that, whatever that might be, it is not knowable to us, and to hold it up as an ideal of objectivity is illusory. I scientifically-inclined tend to idealise this concept and hold it up as that which is gradually disclosed by science. But I don't think there is any such thing - everything must exist from some viewpoint. That is my understanding of it anyway.

I wish more people understood this point. There are many debates on the forum about 'the mind-independent reality' of the universe. I maintain that, whatever that might be, it is not knowable to us, and to hold it up as an ideal of objectivity is illusory. I scientifically-inclined tend to idealise this concept and hold it up as that which is gradually disclosed by science. But I don't think there is any such thing - everything must exist from some viewpoint. That is my understanding of it anyway.

"A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." -Wittgenstein

Great quote, thanks. It follows then that philosophers who get huffy when someone attacks their arguments are like boxers who get huffy when their opponent punches them.

Good point. Our arguments must be vulnerable, as we are presenting them publicly. On the other hand, personal attacks are something else. Namely an excuse not to address ideas.

And the next move on the dialectical chessboard is seeing that object and subject are both distinctions imposed by what? To resolve this final dualism as Hegel and Wittgenstein arguably did. Our thoughts are simultaneously the intelligible structure of our world. Things-in-themselves exist for us only in our idea of them as outside of our experience. So they exist within our experience, as concept/form. "What we cannot think we cannot think."

In a practical sense this is all too wild. We must have our subject and object dichotomy. But dialectically it might not hold water.

Like dirty boxing or shots to the groin. But those are pretty blatant.

Arguing philosophy, like arguing politics, leads to harsh disagreement by its nature. Our ideas are somewhat personal, and attacks on them are necessarily somewhat personal. I think the metaphor used by the quote promotes an idea of philosophical discussion that is antagonistic, within as set of rules.

A boxer is just as likely to be annoyed by someone running around the ring not fighting as he is by a cheap shot. Probably much more annoyed--it goes against the "rules of boxing" just as much as a cheap shot.

But I'm not ready to get into that yet. I need to think for another year or two.:Glasses:

It follows then that philosophers who get huffy when someone attacks their arguments are like boxers who get huffy when their opponent punches them.

Philosophy usually involves humans, as in thoughts by humans about things involving humans, by that it's very essential to take account for psycology, philosophy without a grain of psycology often fails.