Are people bad at philosophy? — Marchesk
How would you decide that people were either "good" or "bad" at philosophy? — Bitter Crank
Would one look for "progress"? — Bitter Crank
Are people bad at literature? Literature has made little "progress" beyond the achievements of the first surviving works we have (just my opinion). — Bitter Crank
The reason is that our language has remained the same and always introduces us to the same questions... — darthbarracuda
First of all, what would it mean for everyone to be bad at philosophy? It would mean that even our most celebrated philosophers make fundamental mistakes, and — Marchesk
Rational thought is very difficult for humans to sustain, let alone express coherently, even for short intervals (as this or virtually any other forum or Comment section on the internet evidences.) — Brainglitch
he thought professional philosophers should give his arguments more consideration than they have. — Marchesk
Which, I might note, supports my assertion that rational thought is very difficult for humans to sustain even for short intervals. — Brainglitch
And, as discussion sessions even at professional philosophy conventions attest, there is virtually unanimous agreement among those who try to do philosophy, that there remains much muddled confusion and unintelligible nonsense. — Brainglitch
Not clear to me what the metric for such a comparison would be. — Brainglitch
The mistakes they make when philosophizing. — Marchesk
Ability to correct our mistakes over time. — Marchesk
Is literature a field that progresses? I don't think it's the goal of writing to advance the field. It's like asking whether art progresses. New forms are introduced, and people may or may not value the new over the old, but there isn't an objective criteria for what counts as progress. Maybe the accumulation of works could be considered a sort of progress?
If philosophy is an art form, then okay, progress doesn't matter. — Marchesk
I think this whole idea of TGW's that humans are bad at philosophy, that a great philosopher like Kant, for example, really just believed stupid things, is itself a very stupid, facile, even childishly petulant response, that consists essentially in wanting to believe that without making any genuine contribution or effort one could raise oneself to a level above those who are generally considered to be the greats. — John
You might believe the best was achieved by Spinoza, but won't it always be possible that I could disagree with you, just as I might disagree with you that Mozart's music is greater than Bach's or Beethoven's, or Miles Davis'. — John
So, you believe that we can and do understand the world in ways that are completely free from any conceptualization whatsoever? — John
Are people bad at philosophy? This would included professional philosophers as well as the rest of us.
First of all, what would it mean for everyone to be bad at philosophy? — Marchesk
If this is so, why is the human race poor at philosophizing?
hTen poor reasoning also comes to mind. It's not so much the specifics of our beliefs and arguments, but rather the 'form' of arguments which we propose do not hold up to rational scrutiny -- they are rhetorical ploys or make basic errors in reasoning. — Moliere
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.