Explain this shit

>>2260237
They get away with it because they're working with the very beginnings of "advanced" philosophy in their society. They are building the memes that philosophers after them built their works on.

>>2260237
>Why is it that when you point this out, or mention that modern philosophy is only one out of infinitely many viewpoints, you get abused?
>infinitely many viewpoints

The basic premise of postmodernism is that all viewpoints are equal. Most universities and current philosophers are postmodern, thus no objective truth exists according to these schools of thought. Still, postmodernism is inherently contradictionary. Any attempt to debate on postmodernism in an academic setting goes like this:

>a:all viewpoints are equal
>b:I disagree on that
>a:Then you're wrong!!
>b:how can my viewpoint be wrong if you said that all viewpoints are equal?
>a:Stop mansplaining you fascist nazi!!!
>b: But it goes against logic since you contradict yourself
>a: "logic" was just an invention by men and used to oppress womyn

Sadly, politics has overtaken universities, liberals study philosophy to feel elitist and/or more intellectual than their peers. So, no questioning of the point of it all is allowed.

>>2260343

Not sure if you're insulting me but I'm not saying that all viewpoints are equal, only that infinitely many exist.

Also if we all started to have a debate about which criteria to use when judging viewpoints, there would still be infinitely many and the criteria for the criteria would have the same issues.

>>2260383
Out of infinitely many viewpoints, some are logically consistent and others are not. Some make use of occam's razor and involve as little axioms as possible, for others you need to accept a staggering amount of unprovable axioms. But if you throw away the foundations that theories need to be probable, you get postmodern philosophy.
I didn't try to insult you, but rather the current teaching of philosophy in academics.

>>2260237
>modern philosophy is only one out of infinitely many viewpoints
>>2260343
>all viewpoints are equal

These are not the same thing. Reality and things constituting it do have some inherent properties. There can be an infinite number of theories focusing on this or that aspect of reality, so that all of these theories would be correct, at least to a certain extent. But there would also be an infinite number of viewpoints that would be totally or mostly wrong.

>>2260515
From a post-modern standpoint why isn't national socialism equal to liberalism?

>>2260237
>read Plato
>bored to death as he spends 80 pages wondering whether names are just labels or reflect the true nature of things

Plato lived in a decadent democracy full of sophists. His conclusion that words are arbitrary symbols was, at the time, an attempt to show people that 350BC's version of buzzwords were arbitrary. I.E. today people get hung up on 'equality!' or 'Freedom!' without having any idea what the exact definition, or consequence of these things are.

On top of all that, the question is an extremely important one for all of us, philosophers in particular. Distancing your judgments from language, and placing them in the reality language represents, is not an intellectual choice one makes but an evolution of your being through constant self-study. The intellect =/= to your habitual patterns of thought.

>The Greeks seem so naive, as if they believe that "The Official Objective Morality (to)" will pop up out of thin air if they discuss it hard enough. Similarly with the answer to the above question. How the HELL do contemporary philosophers get away with it? Why does nobody call them out?

Once again, the Greeks lived in a time much like ours: democratic, decadent, amoral, the traditional religion slowly drifting into the realm of legend. The Greeks weren't naive, they were living in the hell of subjectivism and doing everything they could to intellectual climb their way out. As far as morality 'popping out of thin air,' it largely did. The Law of Nature, meaning the moral law of human nature, is very real.

OP confirmed for 16 years old

>>2260582
I stated quite clearly why I think the post-modern "every opinion is equal" thing is smug bullshit.

>>2260237
Listen to the first couple dozen or so episodes of the podcast "The History of Philosophy". It'll give context and explain things for you in an easier to understand manner.

>>2260644
Seriously

>>2260237
If you don't think about the basics of things, things that are seemingly obvious, and establish a foundation, then how can you go anywhere further? You have to start with the stuff that matters on a very basic level like "what can we know" or "are our methods of arguing/labeling things reflective of truth". Then you move on and use what you've learned to find more truth.

> The Greeks seem so naive, as if they believe that "The Official Objective Morality (to)" will pop up out of thin air if they discuss it hard enough
I think it's more that finding the objectively best morality was their goal. So they tried to work towards it, even if it might have been impossible. Philosophers still do this today, they try to find the best possible moral systems, so that even if it is the case that there can never be an objectively perfect one, they still have some pretty good ones. Unless what you're arguing is that ALL possible viewpoints are equal and no system has more merit than another, which I seriously don't think they believed at all, and most people don't today either.