How philosophy is different from science and math

NovoJank said:
Any examples of this?
Click to expand...

LOL. If you need examples of philosophical dogmatism, then you too may be dogmatic!

Dogmatism is defined as avoidance from accepting others' beliefs, ideas and behaviors. Dogmatic individuals have many problems in understanding new ideas. They cannot accept reasonable ideas instead of their, often, incorrect, (sometimes even disproven) ideas. They do not cooperate with others with different ideas.

Everyone knows someone that will follow and quote everything their magic book may have to say and will never accept any new ideas. You will find some of these folks telling you that the earth is only around six to ten thousand years old. Philosophy can be logical, and can be argued logically but it is not logic based by any means and is not always argued using logic. Shoot, I would say it is more often dogmatic than it is logical. How often have you changed your mind during an argument, for instance?
 
Damocles said:
Dogmatism is defined as avoidance from accepting others' beliefs, ideas and behaviors. Dogmatic individuals have many problems in understanding new ideas. They cannot accept reasonable ideas instead of their, often, incorrect, (sometimes even disproven) ideas. They do not cooperate with others with different ideas.
Click to expand...

So are you simply decreeing "ideas" as Philosophy? I disagree with opening philosophy up so wide that it no longer has a meaning.

Everyone knows someone that will follow and quote everything their magic book
Click to expand...

I would rather assume that what you are talking about is religion not so much philosophy which rests on reason ergo logic.
 
NovoJank said:
So are you simply decreeing "ideas" as Philosophy? I disagree with opening philosophy up so wide that it no longer has a meaning.



I would rather assume that what you are talking about is religion not so much philosophy which rests on reason ergo logic.
Click to expand...

No, I am pointing out that philosophy holds more than logical argument and pointing out that some folks are dogmatic. Dogmatic philosophy is a term you learn in a philosophy class, because it exists. This idea that it is magically logical because you want it to be, is simply a dogmatic belief that everyone thinks "just like" you do. They do not. Some folks will never be able to accept an idea that is outside their philosophical belief system and then disagree with it. They just will not accept it at all...
 
Damocles said:
No, I am pointing out that philosophy holds more than logical argument and pointing out that some folks are dogmatic. Dogmatic philosophy is a term you learn in a philosophy class, because it exists. This idea that it is magically logical because you want it to be, is simply a dogmatic belief that everyone thinks "just like" you do. They do not. Some folks will never be able to accept an idea that is outside their philosophical belief system and then disagree with it. They just will not accept it at all...
Click to expand...

Philosophers hardly ever talk about logical flaws in other peoples' arguments. Virtually all disputes are about the content or substance of the argument.
 
Damocles said:
No, I am pointing out that philosophy holds more than logical argument and pointing out that some folks are dogmatic. Dogmatic philosophy is a term you learn in a philosophy class, because it exists. This idea that it is magically logical because you want it to be, is simply a dogmatic belief that everyone thinks "just like" you do. They do not. Some folks will never be able to accept an idea that is outside their philosophical belief system and then disagree with it. They just will not accept it at all...
Click to expand...

I would, unfortunately, fall afoul of No True Scotsman since I would consider anything devoid of a logical underpinning to be anything BUT philosophy. But your point is well taken. So someone comes up with a crackpot idea and that is "philosophy". It makes me uncomfortable since I see no value in crackpot ideas. But I DO see values in philosophical ideas because they are usually presented with the reasoning behind them (hence "logic").
 
BidenPresident said:
Philosophers hardly ever talk about logical flaws in other peoples' arguments. Virtually all disputes are about the content or substance of the argument.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That's my point. Philosophy can be logically argued, but it is certainly not something that is required, nor is it something employed more often by philosophers than other methods of argument. Philosophical arguments are rarely logical, because the basic context is itself almost never based in logic.
 
Damocles said:
Indeed. That's my point. Philosophy can be logically argued, but it is certainly not something that is required, nor is it something employed more often by philosophers than other methods of argument. Philosophical arguments are rarely logical, because the basic context is itself almost never based in logic.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Doesn't sound like the couple of philosophy classes I took. I wonder why the logic class is in the Philosophy department at many universities.
 
Damocles said:
Indeed. That's my point. Philosophy can be logically argued, but it is certainly not something that is required, nor is it something employed more often by philosophers than other methods of argument. Philosophical arguments are rarely logical, because the basic context is itself almost never based in logic.
Click to expand...

Agree. The idea that philosophers only talk about logic is absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top