The big name philosophers who fell out of vaginas located in western countries do not agree in their conclusions about the nature of reality. — Bartricks
There are some who find reasoned argument oppressive, because reason only permits there to be one true view — Bartricks
Unless maybe reasoned argument permits any number of views depending on the starting premises? That’s how reasoning works in case you didn’t know. It applies rules to premises. And the premises themselves can be different leading to different views. So no, reason doesn’t lead to the one true view, as there will always be starting premises that can’t be reasoned for if you dig back long enough. — khaled
maybe reasoned argument permits any number of views depending on the starting premises? And the premises themselves can be different leading to different views. So no, reason doesn’t lead to the one true view, as there will always be starting premises that can’t be reasoned for if you dig back long enough. — khaled
I mean, what does 'Western' philosophy mean? Does it mean philosophy 'as practiced' in the west? But that's just 'philosophy'. There's nothing 'western' about it. It is just the practice of using reasoned argument to find out about reality. So it can't mean that, as the word 'Western' is doing no work.
Does it denote a worldview that has been arrived at by Western philosophers? Well, there isn't one, as anyone who has read the canon knows. The big name philosophers who fell out of vaginas located in western countries do not agree in their conclusions about the nature of reality. So anyone using the term in that way is simply evincing ignorance, surely?
Does it denote the entire collection of worldviews that have been held by philosophers who fell out of vaginas in western countries? Well, in that case it is not a helpful term at all, given that those worldviews are very different and the only thing they all have in common is that those who arrived at them did so by using philosophy.
Or does it - and I think this is increasingly the case - function to express contempt at the very exercise of using reason to find out about the world? There are some who find reasoned argument oppressive, because reason only permits there to be one true view, and thus if one undertakes to use reasoned argument to find out about the world, one is almost certain to discover that many of one's preexisting views about the world are false. Practitioners of philosophy - proper philosophy - are therefore imperialist oppressors, who are trying to colonize others at a conceptual level with their western reason. The 'west' has previously practiced physical colonization, and all 'western' philosophy represents is the attempt to extend the colonization to the realm of ideas. — Bartricks
what does 'Western' philosophy mean? — Bartricks
What's 'western' about it is, as you say, that it's "philosophy as practiced in the west". Whatever you believe is "just philosophy" would, like (just) mathematics, be practiced in every civilization more or less the same way. However, philosophy, like other arts, is not used more or less the same way or for the same purposes in every civilization. E.g. dharma & dao are quite different concepts from ethos & logos which imply different applications, or practices, and values (unless, of course, you're historically, philologically & culturally ignorant of the contextual uses of either pair of terms); thus, disputes over comparative translations still persist.I mean, what does 'Western' philosophy mean? Does it mean philosophy 'as practiced' in the west? But that's just 'philosophy'. There's nothing 'western' about it. — Bartricks
So, if a photon is a wave, it is not also a particle? :roll:If a view is true, it is not also false. — Bartricks
Stop the presses – BREAKING NEWS:Thus, if there are two or more theories about one and the same subject matter at least one of them is false.
Analogical inference is not only a method that has been drawn from particular or specific to particular or specific; it also represents a type of inference in which the premises are not necessarily connected to the final conclusion. The link between the premise and the conclusion belongs to the sphere of probability, which is why this kind of inference belongs to the category of “probability inferences”. In spite of these considerations, the ancient Chinese method of analogical thought met the basic requirements of scientific demonstration: it included the clarification of the origin of certain knowledge, the logical inevitability of the sources and the support of the demonstration (Cui & Wen 2001: 110). One of the most important characteristics of traditional Chinese analogism is that it was not exclusively limited upon the forms without considering their contents, something which could prove useful for advocating one’s own ideas, while refuting the viewpoints of others. It also provided a foundation for an awareness of ethical, political and social problems. Such analogism is an inference which is rooted in similarities between the known and unknown. It could therefore not only function as a model that could be applied to existing experience; in addition, it also included certain epistemological effects. Hence, this method could relatively easy also function as a model of truth. — Jana S Rosker
If a view is true, it is not also false. — Bartricks
I think this goes to the heart of the matter. It's the historical narrative that we use to define our tradition that makes us view things like this. And usually that accepted narrative, "The Greeks - the Renaissance thinkers - the Enlightenment philosophers - etc" simply doesn't recall the role of any other traditions. Anything outside that is seen as unimportant.As Possibility pointed out, in the context of a global culture, it distinguishes the European philosophical tradition, commencing with Greek Philosophy, from Chinese, Indian, and other cultures who have corresponding activities that can be reasonably designated 'philosophy', even if that is not a word that is native to their cultures. — Wayfarer
You would agree with me, then, that it is rather silly to talk of western philosophy as if it is something. We should just talk of 'philosophy' and pay no heed to where the philosopher happened to be born. — Bartricks
If they're not arguing something, they're not philosophers. So, Descartes is. Lao Tzu isn't. — Bartricks
If a view is true — Bartricks
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.