How do we know when philosophy is just justifying the status quo of whatever is considered important for society to function. For example, work is necessary to keep society going, so the idea goes, so it must be a good that people need to participate in. The hidden context is it’s beneficience for society, the stated one is it is good for the person. The one dies not necessitate the other though; it is an excuse to keep the status quo. It is then furthered by stern messages of there’s no other way and common sense, and the like. It is just assumed in other words. — schopenhauer1
Whenever philosophy is biased towards anything other than truth, it is not true philosophy. — Tzeentch
Whenever philosophy is biased towards anything other than truth, it is not true philosophy.
— Tzeentch
This looks to me like epistemic and value claims hiding within a tautology hoping to go unnoticed.
Either we ignore it and some notion of truth self-justifies by refusing to scrutinize itself further or we're off to the races with "What is truth?" and "What is the value of truth?". — John Doe
How do we know when philosophy is just justifying the status quo — schopenhauer1
Philosophy always cuts both ways and is awash in a sea of motives. There are likely deep personal reasons for your inquiring into philosophy's use as a justification for personal investment in society and the status quo as opposed to philosophy's use as a justification for resentment towards society and personal inability to cope successfully with the status quo. The only philosophical cure for bad philosophical self-justification is more philosophy. But as we all know too much philosophy usually destroys a person, so it may often be best to let people play in their sandbox of philosophical self-deception, or at least not to be shocked or dismayed when they prefer to do so. — John Doe
....as we all know too much philosophy usually destroys a person — John Doe
It is certainly not hoping to go unnoticed. If you disagree, make your case. — Tzeentch
How can this possibly be so when the question "what is 'truth'?" is purportedly within the purview of philosophy? Wouldn't that beg the question? — Isaac
It's a perfectly valid question to ask. I don't see how a bias towards truth should prevent such questions from being asked. — Tzeentch
So one must find the lost city of Eldorado. — Tzeentch
That's why a philosopher needs to be utterly dedicated to truth, and nothing but the truth, and he must scrutinize himself every step of the way, for of all people a philosopher should know how valuable and rare truth is. — Tzeentch
But by virtue of striving honestly and critically one may hope to see more clearly. — Tzeentch
It could be argued that if a person needs to be restrained in order to make him engage in true philosophy, he does not yet have the capacity to be a true philosopher. — Tzeentch
How would you know? — Tzeentch
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.