[Plato]

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

Yes, you certainly sound like a frustrated beginner.

That's harsh. Still I'll justify my points to see if I can persuade you.

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

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.

I'm saying that since everything is based upon initial assumptions, we might as well choose the perspectives that suit us, since it's possible to believe just about anything. Studying philosophy is useful for seeing what some of the options are.

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

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.

Well, if you think Nietzche, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Hegel, Foucault, Goodman and Rorty (the philosophers whose understandings of the meaning and purpose of philosophy I tend to agree with) are new agey nonsense.

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

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.

I'm not saying beliefs are passed down. They are inherritted by philosophers and changed and new ones created. Since you are a Professor of philosophy(?) I assume you've read Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue"? My ideas of philosophy as historical analysis are from him. I disagree with his arguments in support of Thomism and virtue ethics but I think his analysis of the state of modern philosophy is bang on. If you haven't read it he argues that the Enlightenment project to justify an objective morality absent of a teleology could not succeed and the further attempts of Utilitarianism and the post Kantian attempts to justify a morality fall flat on their face.

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

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.

No, they are being metaphysicians. I meant philosophy should be literary criticism. (That is taken from Richard Rorty's "Private Irony and Liberal Hope")

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

Regarding #4, see #3.

My ideas are from this man (edit: whoops wrong link, I mean his later philosophy, not early) Ludwig Wittgenstein (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). If you remember he argued that the role of philosophy is language therapy.

Originally Posted by helpmestartauniversity

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.

I'm not looking for answers any more. That was the point of this thread. I realise there are no answers. However, that doesn't mean I'm tossing all reason out of the window. Far from it! My applications of critical thinking are only just beginning.