I guess you could view Kant's antinomies as evidence of the paradoxical nature of the relationship between the subjective and the objective....

as far as I know psychology/ the human mentality is highly contradictory. This comes to light in what sentiments we hold most valuable - our famous sayings/ proverbs which often oppose each other but are both in fact quite valid and applicable. For example;

“actions speak louder than words” vs. “The pen is mightier than the sword” or “absence makes the heart grow fonder” vs. “Out of sight out of mind”. Or “two heads are better than one” vs. “Paddle your own canoe” or my personal favourite “better safe than sorry” vs. “Nothing ventured nothing gained”.

I believe the fundamental flaw underpinning philosophical endeavour is that “logic cannot be contradicted”. I resolve this by suggesting there are multiple logics and therefore there is often an argument between two people where they both oppose each other for very valid logical reasons- whether they be objective or subjective in nature. The epitome of this is a paradox

I appreciate your insight in the use of folk wisdom to verify the validity of applicable paradoxes. I will study more into folk wisdom and perhaps there is more truth given by our ancestors after all...

I was thinking about the history of philosophy and how in all it's history philosophers haven't really solved a single important question — Thinking

Coincidentally, my favourite philosophical question is: Has philosophy answered any important questions? It's a relief to discover on a philosophy forum that it has not. Also coincidentally, that is a paradox.

There's an equal amount of good and bad in everything.

I was thinking about the history of philosophy and how in all it's history philosophers haven't really solved a single important question. Perhaps, then, some of the key principles of the foundations that made philosophical thinking are flawed. — Thinking

Has philosophy answered any important questions? It's a relief to discover on a philosophy forum that it has not. — Kenosha Kid

I don't think that's true, it's the residue of a kind of popular myth put about by positivists. Philosophy is concerned first and foremost with insight, and great philosophers have had many great insights. Most likely, these insights are simply not understood by many readers, who then turn around and claim that they said nothing of worth in the first place.

I don't think that's true — Wayfarer

Don't make me explain the joke, dude.

:yikes:

I was thinking about the history of philosophy and how in all it's history philosophers haven't really solved a single important question. — Thinking

If you understood philosophy the way I wish people would , you would realize your claim is exactly the same as saying that science hasn’t really solved a single important question.

If you understood philosophy the way I wish people would , you would realize your claim is exactly the same as saying that science hasn’t really solved a single important question. — Joshs

I'm still mulling over "solving a question." Another example of philosophical babble IMO. :roll:

Oh, dear! do you not believe in solutions, absolutely settled for all times, truth of a matter?
Does your heretical self not believe in answers and a final score?
:lol:
Do you, I suppose, believe that you can run these white water rapids of life in a flimsy little "maybe" kayak?
I sincerely hope so.

"I'm still mulling over "solving a question."

Oh, dear! do you not believe in solutions — Tres Bien

One answers a question. One solves a problem. :roll:

I cannot believe that.
At the same time I cannot disbelieve that.

Does that make sense. Can one not believe and not disbelieve concurrently?

Sure philosophy has gave many answers but never SOLVED any... A lot of the answers even contradict the other ones... So if there is truth in paradox could it mean these answers are all correct? interesting thought...

hint: maybe
...the one alternative to either believing or disbelieving, the path so seldom traveled unfortunately

If it was Solved there wouldn't be any contradictory beliefs with the knowledge given IN THEORY.

I was thinking about the history of philosophy and how in all it's history philosophers haven't really solved a single important question. Perhaps, then, some of the key principles of the foundations that made philosophical thinking are flawed. So I flaunted about thinking this and that and one of the key principles that stood out to me most is the principle of non-contradiction. I know in Taoist philosophy there are many things that contradict each other while maintaining a solid foundation for wisdom. So, what say you on this matter? Are there any contradictory claims that have a level of truth and wisdom in them that you know of? Comment below. — Thinking

Experiencing the contradiction rather than denying it can open the door to "meaning" Simone Weil explains: “When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.”

Must we believe exclusively in the law of non-contradiction or the law of the excluded middle? Can we also know of the Law of the Included Middle and see why appreciating this apparent contradiction opens a door?

I just found these:

https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/graham-priests-contradictions-in-the-world-zeno-s-arrow-and-legal-inconsistencies-9eb6fd7d2e00

http://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2016/11/graham-priests-dialetheic-logic.html

Interesting points on both sides of the discussion it seems

“When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.” — Nikolas

Very interesting

A true contradiction that I connect with is: I'm living & I'm dying. I'm living because here I am typing on my phone & I'm dying because, with each passing minute, I'm approaching my death.

In the practice of zen, a “koan” is a question which has no logical answer, like “what is the sound of one hand clapping”? Nevertheless, the student is expected to meditate on the question and give an answer to the zen master.
“This sentence is false” is a paradox in language. If it’s true, then it’s not false and if it’s false, then it’s true.

Technically there is no good or bad in anything, only in us.

So if philosophy hasn't answered any important questions then why bother with it? Seems like a waste of university money then.

I was thinking about the history of philosophy and how in all it's history philosophers haven't really solved a single important question. — Thinking

But this isn't true. Many problems have been solved by philosophers, but there is no consensus on which ones, and there is no method we can use to settle the matter. Scientific questions are different, we have a method to settle disagreements.

Exactly.

And what does the university have to do with it?

Sorry, but two scientific theories do not have to be consistent with each other. For example, the theories of the end of the universe: Big Rip, Bir Crunch or Big Freeze.
Leibniz already said it. I suppose that philosophy meant a lot to the last wise man capable of innovating in everything (except geography)

Two truths cannot exist in contradiction.

Many problems have been solved by philosophers, but there is no consensus on which ones, — bert1

Nicely put.

More like it takes funds to pay for such education but if philosophy hasn't answered anything important then why do we bother teaching it? Just to sit on a treadmill?

I was thinking about the history of philosophy and how in all it's history philosophers haven't really solved a single important question. — Thinking

That one-eyed look at history ignores the progress made by philosophers in the field of Natural Philosophy. Aristotle summarized the current state of knowledge of the physical world in the first book of his 4th century encyclopedia : Physics (literally "lectures on nature"). For over 1500 years thereafter, Aristotle's book was the authority for Natural Philosophers. Now, although that book has some historical value, it is of little significance for 21st century Natural Scientists.

However, the second volume of the encyclopedia, later labelled "Meta-Physics", has continued to provide valuable insights for both philosophers and scientists to this day. That's because it is not elaborating on the primitive understanding of Nature by ancient people using only their natural senses, and some rudimentary theories. Instead, in the Meta-Physics he laid-down the foundation for modern psychology and philosophy, by revealing some of the innate paradoxes in Human Nature. Those contradictions may be due mainly to the dual nature of homo sapiens. We have both an ape-like body, and a sapient self-consciousness. Therefore, until we cease to be self-reflective apes, we will continue to struggle with competing motives, emotional versus rational. And with perplexing philosophical paradoxes.

The history of Philosophy indicates that during the European Enlightenment, Natural Philosophers, such as Galileo, built on the holistic Greek foundation of natural knowledge, and began the reductive quest for the holy grail of modern science : the "atom" of physical Nature. From then on, physical science was characterized by analysis, mechanism, and reductive empiricism. This rupture in the continuity of philosophical investigation left theologians and meta-physical philosophers behind, to deal with intractable questions of the non-physical aspects of Nature. That's why, on this forum, we continue to argue about the Mind/Body problem, long after physical science has nailed-down the material structure of bodies & brains. Yet, even mostly philosophical Psychology is still in the primitive stages of understanding the elusive butterfly of Psyche. :smile:


Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Psyche is the Greek word for butterfly.
https://extension.purdue.edu/article/14398

More like it takes funds to pay for such education but if philosophy hasn't answered anything important then why do we bother teaching it? Just to sit on a treadmill? — Darkneos

Because it can be a stepping stone to more important endeavors.

The study of philosophy should not be taught in universities but instead it should be part of a personal quest. Who cares what somebody else thinks about xyz's writing? If you want a critique, there are more than enough available in a library or online.