Quote:
Originally Posted by Plato  Plato -> Kant = poop.
1) Like The Cloud said, metaphysicians are very very good at throwing dust in your eyes through monstrous convoluted arguments which hide the fact they are based on initial assumptions of some kind.
2) philosophy is nothing more than a tradition of beliefs that flow from one to another chronologically.
3) Philosophy, rightly, is literary criticism.
4) Yeah, it's all language games. |
Yes, you certainly sound like a frustrated beginner.
Regarding #1, are you trying to make the point that we should toss out everything that's based on initial assumptions? That leaves you only with theorems in logic (a branch of philosophy) and mathematics, and even with those, it would be purely syntactical (you'd lose all possibility of semantical value). I'm not sure that you fully realize that reasoning of any kind about anything (including new age fluff) requires assumptions of some sort. Even coherentists have to make basic assumptions about the world and the power of reason.
Whatever you do, don't for one second make the completely nonsensical jump from "nothing can be shown to be objectively true without assumptions" to "so I'll give up on thinking hard and instead subscribe to new agey fantasy BS." I'm sure, if you think about it, you'll realize that new agey nonsense is susceptible to the same complaints that rigorous thinking is...and more.
Regarding #2, that's just plain false. As a matter of fact, it's the direct antithesis of Philosophy. Are you trying to make a joke? Philosophy is about the thorough vetting of ideas, concepts, and beliefs. It's about questioning everything to the fullest extent that our powers of human reasoning will allow, and using the results to form our belief systems.
Perhaps you're being led astray by noticing that philosophical discussions and advancements stretch over centuries in an ongoing dialog. Serious philosophers are playing the same game--pursuing truth via reason--so as different avenues are found, discussions progress. But that's
drastically different from saying that the belief systems themselves are passed down.
Regarding #3, that's more false nonsense. To say that what Plato/Kant/Hume/Aristotle/Locke are doing is literary criticism is beyond ignorant on your part. Get real.
Regarding #4, see #3.
Look, I know it's frustrating that philosophy doesn't dole out nicely packaged answers for you. Quite often the best you're gonna get out of a study of philosophy will be a better understanding of the real problems of human existence, exposure to a wide variety of great philosophers' proposed answers to these problems, and improved critical thinking skills.
Unfortunately, from your perspective, no religion, cult, or new agey nonsense will fill that gap for you, either, since you'll be able to easily shred their belief systems as being built on faulty logic and based on unjustified premises. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the answers that you seem to be wanting are not accessible to humans. Yeah it sucks, but you're gonna have to deal with it.