Philosophy

Is "doing" philosophy a series of back and forth arguments? If so, then just who is the jury that decides? If a group of experienced analytic professors debates one Ayn Rand follower with no academic training, and repeated population samples find the Randian more convincing, then just who is right?

Comments

If so, then just who is the jury that decides? ...then just who is right?

As I see it, those two questions don't go hand-in-hand. Which side in a debate has the better reasons isn't something that a jury (in any sense of 'jury') can decide. It's not like legal guilt, which is something that a jury (or its equivalent) must decide and which isn't guaranteed to match what a fully informed and impartial observer would decide. No one is legally guilty unless a jury (or its equivalent) decides that he/she is. But one side in a debate can have the better reasons even if everyone in the audience judges otherwise. I think this point holds for debates in general, including philosophical debates. That's one reason why the oft-repeated "Who's to say?" is the wrong question to ask when debating an issue in ethics: no one's say-so is necessary or sufficient for truth in ethics or in philosophy more generally.

The idea that the consensus, or even the unanimity, of an audience doesn't determine the quality of a debater's reasons goes back to the ancient dispute between Plato and the sophists about the nature and value of philosophy and rhetoric. Much has been written about that topic, including much that's available online.

Read another response by Stephen Maitzen

Read another response about Philosophy