/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14153573]

Brainlet here.

Does it even make sense to have a philosophical argument? That is, is it possible that a philosophical current ever "wins" an argument against a competing philosophical current? In mathematics where the formal rules seem to be more or less agreed upon (correct me if I'm wrong, as mentioned I'm a brainlet) one can show that someone is clearly wrong or correct, but when you have an adaptive language like philosophical reasoning, a philosophical language can simply mutate to avoid whatever refutations its premises might suffer. so when we talk and debate philosophy, politics etc. is the debate about someone being correct or incorrect or is it about simply making a more convincing rhetorical performance within the philosophical language one uses, one could even call it propaganda? so it would seem, assuming this debate has public observers, that it is moreso a social mechanism for influencing the dominant ideology rather than a question of truth, as it would appear at the surface level. I am inclined to think that philosophy is not a question of truth but moreso a conglomerate of rational thought and artistic creativity, the result of which is a subjective interpretation of being. For this reason, I don't understand why such a large number of philosophers act in a way where it seems that they are convinced certain philosophical positions are true and others wrong, when it appears quite obvious that philosophical positions are either under-worked (when "false") or under-challenged (when "true"). So it doesn't appear that philosophy is the love of wisdom, philosophy is an act done by rational intellect resulting in an artistic creation that is imbued with some sense of rationality. Of course, I don't think mathematics falls that far away from this definition either, but it appears that mathematics due to its formalization at least possesses in localized occasions a sense of finality and validity or falseness, whereas philosophical argumentation is eternally mutable and infinite not just on a global level but on local occasions as well. Yet you still have philosophers passionately defending or attacking certain positions fully convinced they are arguing for truth?

[Anonymous No.14153781]

>>14153573
i guess i'd like to read some books exploring these kind of themes. any recommendations?

[Anonymous No.14153814]

>>14153573
>Does it even make sense to have a philosophical argument?
It better make sense. BECAUSE YOU'RE IN ONE.
>That is, is it possible that a philosophical current ever "wins" an argument against a competing philosophical current?
That is not the point of a philosophical conversation. It isn't about persuading anyone. It's about discussing topics in hope to learn more about them from discussion. It's not about winning. it's about fun.
>In mathematics where the formal rules seem to be more or less agreed upon (correct me if I'm wrong, as mentioned I'm a brainlet) one can show that someone is clearly wrong or correct,
Compare anything to mathematics and you will see that NOTHING is as logical as it. It is the only thing that makes sense.
>but when you have an adaptive language like philosophical reasoning, a philosophical language can simply mutate to avoid whatever refutations its premises might suffer. so when we talk and debate philosophy, politics etc. is the debate about someone being correct or incorrect or is it about simply making a more convincing rhetorical performance within the philosophical language one uses,
Neither. The main hope is that both parties gain knowledge from the conversation.
>one could even call it propaganda? so it would seem, assuming this debate has public observers, that it is moreso a social mechanism for influencing the dominant ideology rather than a question of truth, as it would appear at the surface level.
Most philosophical conversations happen in privet, as they should.
>I am inclined to think that philosophy is not a question of truth but moreso a conglomerate of rational thought and artistic creativity, the result of which is a subjective interpretation of being.
Close. It's MULTIPLE conglomerates of thought and creativity. Anyone is allowed into it's playing field.
>Field too long
Will continue

[Anonymous No.14153819]

>>14153573
Math is subjective and fallible as well

[Anonymous No.14153827]

>>14153814
>For this reason, I don't understand why such a large number of philosophers act in a way where it seems that they are convinced certain philosophical positions are true and others wrong, when it appears quite obvious that philosophical positions are either under-worked (when "false") or under-challenged (when "true"). So it doesn't appear that philosophy is the love of wisdom, philosophy is an act done by rational intellect resulting in an artistic creation that is imbued with some sense of rationality.
Now, most people beleive things. That's because most people are idiots. That is why most philosophers are idiots. Same as most mathematicians, doctors, lawyers, ect. Every job is mostly idiots.
>Of course, I don't think mathematics falls that far away from this definition either, but it appears that mathematics due to its formalization at least possesses in localized occasions a sense of finality and validity or falseness, whereas philosophical argumentation is eternally mutable and infinite not just on a global level but on local occasions as well.
That is partially the point. Conversations can have their own definitians and methods. There's nothing wrong with that. Musicians don't make their music all the same way.
>Yet you still have philosophers passionately defending or attacking certain positions fully convinced they are arguing for truth?
Like I said, idiots. Philosophy is a lot like religion. You gotta skip around to find the important grains of truth and wisdom and insight. You shouldn't look to philosophy for answers. Look instead to find the questions.

>>14153781
Philosophy in general. Though, you will get annoyed at the confidence found in some fellows about matters still disputed. I'd recc, just as personal preference, Seneca, Epictetus, Aurelius, Cicero.

[Anonymous No.14153966]

>>14153573
Philosophical arguments are just another way to say philosophical conversations. No one truly "wins" the argument, instead each person gains knowledge and they either draw their own conclusions or come to a communal agreement.