ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Happiness
Philosophy
Rationality

A long time ago - Jan 2006 if I'm not mistaken - Alan Soble wrote (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/875): "Finally, the heart and soul of philosophy is argument, providing reasons for claims, including claims about morality and duties. In the answer to the question above, I cannot find a shred of argument. We should also avoid, that is, pastoral or friendly counseling. Without rigor, philosophy is nothing." That was back in the days when there was routinely more than 1 response to a question. Today's responses seem more and more to be becoming "pastoral or friendly counseling" without rigor. The panelists do not argue with each other - the responses are just accepted. Here's an example: Peter Smith wrote very recently (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2823): "For irrationally formed beliefs are not likely to lead to actions which get any of us what we want -- including a decent life, lived well in the knowledge of our all-too-explicable mortality." This statement - simply put out...

I don't agree with Soble's claim that "without rigor, philosophy is nothing." Philosophy can be a source of insight, a glimpse into a completely different way of thinking about things, a moment of doubt, an invitation to reflection, the introduction of a new concept, and much more. All this can happen without argument and without "rigor," whatever that is supposed to be. And disagreement, although valuable, is not necessary for good philosophy. An over-emphasis on "rigor" can shut down genuine inquiry and leave us with sterile platitudes, and agonistic debate is only one model for gaining knowledge. "Rigorous" philosophy, full of argument, and undertaken in a spirit of debate can be fantastic, but philosophy is also so much more than this!
Ethics
Philosophy
Religion

Many Americans make the assumption that a person cannot be moral unless he subscribes to a religion. But philosophy is replete with ethical systems other than divine-command theory, some of which have been around for thousands of years. Why haven't teachers of philosophy been able to teach or convince the public that being moral does not necessarily depend upon believing in a divine being?

I think there are probably two main reasons: (1) Philosophers don't generally speak to or write for the general public, and most are not suited to the role of public figure . Religious leaders (pastors, priests, ministers) have an opportunity every Sunday to speak to a much broader range of people. (2) Philosophers have little beyond argument to support their view, whereas religious leaders can encourage belief in their views by promises of good things (heaven, divine forgiveness) and threats (punishment, hell). These considerations seem more than sufficient to explain the phenomenon.
Philosophy

How does one know if they ARE a philosopher?

The question presupposes that some people are philosophers--in some special and perhaps deep sense--and others aren't. (Of course some people are professional philosophers and others aren't. But I don't think that's what you're asking about.) I don't believe that there is a group of people who are philosophers in a deep sense. Philosophy is something that people do. Some people do it more than others. Most people can do it if they encounter a philosophical problem. Some people love to do it, others hate it. People tend to do it better if they are coached by others who have done it a lot. People who have done it a lot, love it, and have gotten good at it get called 'philosophers'. Likewise, people who run a lot, love it, and have gotten good at it, get called 'runners'. I can run if I want, but I'm not a runner in this sense. Just as it seems odd to ask whether someone really is a runner, I find it odd to ask whether someone really is a philosopher. Perhaps you are wondering if...