Philosophy of X only exists so long as there is disagreement over the nature of X
  • Sinderion
    27
    Idle thoughts led me to form the above statement. I highly doubt this is a new idea but I thought it would be fun to kick around. Basically what I mean by the above is so long as disagreement over the nature of a <concept> is possible, there necessarily is a philosophy of <concept>. Therefore, if there is no disagreement possible over the nature of some concept, then there cannot be a philosophy of that concept.

    Do note that I'm not saying if everyone happened to agree on the nature of the concept, then no disagreement would be possible (though I highly doubt it would make a material difference to the actual existence of the philosophy of that concept among these agreeable people)

    Thoughts? Are there any philosophers who have said something more substantial about this than I have articulated above?
    Sinderion Options
  • _db
    3.6k
    Therefore, if there is no disagreement possible over the nature of some concept, then there cannot be a philosophy of that concept. — Sinderion

    Correct. Philosophical methodology is via argumentation. You cannot argue without having disagreement.

    This is why there is no philosophy of tupperware, or philosophy of car washing. There just isn't enough to disagree over, and plus most everyone doesn't care to flesh out their disagreements.

    However, not all philosophy acts as a handmaiden to another profession. There are independent philosophical studies.
    _db Options
  • Sir2u
    3.6k
    Philosophical methodology is via argumentation. — darthbarracuda

    I hate using Wiki, but I am too lazy tonight.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology

    You cannot argue without having disagreement.

    This is why there is no philosophy of tupperware, or philosophy of car washing.     — darthbarracuda

    There are plenty of things to argue about with either topic, just as there are plenty of things to argue about with your spouse. But that is not the reason that a philosophy does not exist for them.
    When philosophers argue, they don't really argue but present their explanations of the topic at hand and provide the evidence, ARGUMENTS, necessary to backup their way of thinking.
    Sir2u Options
  • Sinderion
    27
    ↪darthbarracuda
    I don't think I'm disagreeing all too much, but I need to ask: When you say there are independent philosophical studies, do you just mean that they are independent of any extant disciplines, or that some philosophical topics necessarily cannot resolve into a separate discipline?
    Sinderion Options
  • _db
    3.6k
    ↪Sinderion
    Independent philosophical studies are like epistemology, metaphysics, logic, etc. These are used in the various philosophies of x's, but can be studied by themselves.
    _db Options
  • YIOSTHEOY
    76
    ↪Sinderion


    You could substitute "uncertainty" for "disagreement" and come up with the same thing.
    YIOSTHEOY Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories