Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1461130726099s.jpg (5KB, 250x247px) Image search:
[Google]
5KB, 250x247px
r/askphilosophy
Why is my approach to thinking about philosophy bad?
u/SoYouBeSaying105d
I ask "why bad" instead of "why good" because it leads me to discard most of what is said on this subreddit as pointless, so Im asking why I would be wrong.
The Munchhausen Trilemma [1] really crystallised what I thought about philosophy already. So many philosophical conclusions depend on the initial axioms, yet nobody can prove the axioms (unless they use other axioms but those need to be proved and so on). This is what I believe and it leads me to see so many questions on this subreddit as pointless and inane. To give examples:
"If determinism does exist, are our lives not meaningless?" [2]: Well, obviously you can solve this in a second because it depends on whether you choose to assign meaning to your life, which you had no control over. So you can simply choose whatever conclusion you FEEL like. One person could say, "Yes, our lives are meaningless because they were predetermined. (i.e. I take as an axiom that there is no meaningfulness to a predetermined act)." Another could say "No, because I see our physical perceptions as something to enjoy." or "No, it has meaning because I liked watching the Simpsons and felt pleasure at this."
Do you see what Im saying? The question simply asks for the definition of meaningful, which is subjective (although I know that a lot of sneering occurs on this subreddit when the word "subjective" is used, but I think some things, such as the word "meaningful" are not widely agreed upon so I expect more than sneering and insults if you want me to stop using the word subjective) and then the definition of meaningful trivially leads to the answer to the question.
>>
Another:
"If a person has a brain tumor pressing on their amygdyla, which causes them to commit a crime, are they ethically responsible?" [3]: Thats a greatquestion, but again, it could come down to a number of definitions that people cant agree upon. Definitions that relate to (among other things): The temporariness of the tumour (e.g. should the tumour be compared to a temporary illness that removes mental responsibility or to a gene that promotes violence in people and which we would have given the criminal no reprieve for; as well as the issue of a gene directly causing or promoting tumour growth), the ability to treat it and the responsibility (and capability) of the person to have treated the tumour, the cause of the tumour (possibly inflicted due to lifestyle or societal choices), and so on. But again, the answer simply comes down to your own definition of ethical. Why do people on this subreddit act as if academia has some monopoly over the ability to answer a question like this?
You could say, "OP, the conclusion doesnt matter but the reasoning and collection of arguments does". Well that would be noble but I see a HUGE amount of sneering relating to philosophy, both on this board and others, solely due to people having different axioms.
I dont want to rant, but let me say that I will be hugely surprised if my view is changed. I expect to see not much more than appeals to authority.
>>
Kys
>>
File: 1478542003437.jpg (40KB, 320x320px) Image search:
[Google]
40KB, 320x320px
you have to go back
>>
Please shape these better, I am an organised fellow and I prefer clean paragraph structure in order to decipher the content.
Please readjust the posts and I shall reply.
>>
>I dont like philosophy because of a word game
>>
>>1965763
>Munchhausen Trilemma
Try coherentism.
>>
>>1966156
>coherentism
Shit taste
Foundationalist master race
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2