What's the point of philosophy any more?

[The Grand Nudger]

I can state..as an alleged a priori truth..that your above statement is certainly wrong..simply because I understand the meanings of the word authority and dogmatic.  

Stepping out of such inanities for a better rebuttal, I can point out that authority can be but isn't necessarily dogmatic..that the two are neither synonymous in meaning or interchangeable IRL.  I hold authority here in my home...for example...but I don't insist, as that authority, that my principles are incontrovertibly true.  Or more to the point in regards to our discussion..that while you may have asserted the incontrovertible truth of the principles of your authority - reason (and reason as you see it, no less)....there's no requirement that you do so..it's your own personal dogmatic tick. Meanwhile..those principles have been wrong in the past, and there is strong indication that room exists for improvement of those principles in the present.

[Edwardo Piet]

I can state..as an alleged a priori truth..that your above statement is certainly wrong..simply because I understand the meanings of the word authority and dogmatic.  

If you are suggesting that absolute certainty is necessarily dogmatic by definition then "dogmatic" is neverless extremely misleading and unhelpful a word to use when applied to an incredibly sound and rational statement such as "all squares have 4 sides." (Misleading and unhelpful much like yourself in debates in general).

However, to say that it is dogmatic of you to assert that absolute certainty itself is necessarily dogmatic regardless of reason is neither a misleading nor unhelpful use of the word "dogmatic" on my part. It is indeed very dogmatic, in a truly negative way (and in a way that makes "dogmatic" an appropriate word to use), to assert that absolute certainty itself is necessarily dogmatic regardless of reason. That's dogmatic and unreasonable and you act as if connotations aren't relevant to language. "Dogmatic" at the very least alludes to "absolutely certain about something in a case where it's a bad thing to be absolutely certain about it". Dogma is bad. And there's absolutely nothing bad about being absolutely certain about something that you absolutely should be absolutely certain about because it's absolutely true... that's an absolutely good thing, and it's at the very least a little bit bad (or incorrect) to not be absolutely certain of what is indeed absolutely certain... and to pretend like something is less certain than it actually is is not only illogical at best and disingenuous at worst, but like I have already explained... the pitfalls of the post-truth "nothing can be absolutely certaintly known to be true, false right or wrong" era may not be as bad as the pitfalls of dogma... but they're not much better.

From a balanced standpoint, arguing against the "no truths can be known absolutely" position is like arguing against an irrational brick wall just as much as arguing against dogma... and arguing against you and your insistence that there is no absolute truth that can be known regularly feels like this to me:



And it's no wonder. You absolutely do make epic fails and just because not everyone agrees with me doesn't mean I don't see something that some people don't, and know that I absolutely do see it just as others who absolutely do know it absolutely do know it.

[The Grand Nudger]

You keep saying if you are asserting this..or if you are asserting that.

Ham, stop.  I'm simply pointing out that the assertion that the principles of ones authority are incontrovertibly true is the very definition of dogmatic..and that if there are a priori truths, that being dogmatic is being dogmatic..is one of them.

There is no qualifier on the definition "unless they have a really good reason" and..not for nothing...they always say they do..don't they? I get that you think you have good reasons for this or that..I keep agreeing with you that you do, and that I agree with this or that. I do concede, however, that there are also people who have good reasons for positions which conflict with our this or that's...up to and including the validity or accuracy of our principles.

[bennyboy]

I can state..as an alleged a priori truth..that your above statement is certainly wrong..simply because I understand the meanings of the word authority and dogmatic.  

If you are suggesting that absolute certainty is necessarily dogmatic by definition then "dogmatic" is neverless extremely misleading and unhelpful a word to use when applied to an incredibly sound and rational statement such as "all squares have 4 sides." (Misleading and unhelpful much like yourself in debates in general).

However, to say that it is dogmatic of you to assert that absolute certainty itself is necessarily dogmatic regardless of reason is neither a misleading nor unhelpful use of the word "dogmatic" on my part. It is indeed very dogmatic, in a truly negative way (and in a way that makes "dogmatic" an appropriate word to use), to assert that absolute certainty itself is necessarily dogmatic regardless of reason. That's dogmatic and unreasonable and you act as if connotations aren't relevant to language. "Dogmatic" at the very least alludes to "absolutely certain about something in a case where it's a bad thing to be absolutely certain about it". Dogma is bad. And there's absolutely nothing bad about being absolutely certain about something that you absolutely should be absolutely certain about because it's absolutely true... that's an absolutely good thing, and it's at the very least a little bit bad (or incorrect) to not be absolutely certain of what is  indeed absolutely certain... and to pretend like something is less certain than it actually is is not only illogical at best and disingenuous at worst, but like I have already explained... the pitfalls of the post-truth "nothing can be absolutely certaintly known to be true, false right or wrong" era may not be as bad as the pitfalls of dogma... but they're not much better.

From a balanced standpoint, arguing against the "no truths can be known absolutely" position is like arguing against an irrational brick wall just as much as arguing against  dogma... and arguing against you and your insistence that there is no absolute truth that can be known regularly feels like this to me:
[picture removed by me]

And it's no wonder. You absolutely do make epic fails and just because not everyone agrees with me doesn't mean I don't see something that some people don't, and know that I absolutely do see it just as others who absolutely do know it absolutely do know it.

When observations and ideas are at odds, you have two choices:
1)  Fit the ideas to the observations.
2)  Fit the observations to the ideas.

Science takes the first approach (perhaps after attempting the second and eventually failing), and religious dogma the second.  Christians already "know" what is true, so they must follow the second approach.  The problem with this approach is that if it turns out your source was not a gift from an existent God, but rather a collection of fanciful fairy tales of ancient, uneducated desert-dwellers-- then you have a problem.

[The Grand Nudger]

The same is equally true when there's some disparity presented by a logical principle.  If it turns out that this principle was not absolutely true..in this universe, let alone all universes..then we have a problem.

Sure, we can assert that there's something wrong with the universe (lol) or that there's something wrong with the disparity..........but, you know, penny in a well because we hope not, but the principle might actually be in error.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Philosophy is just the body of organized thought.  How would that ever not be useful?

What then is the field of philosophy? You just study knowledge?

[bennyboy]

Philosophy is just the body of organized thought.  How would that ever not be useful?

What then is the field of philosophy? You just study knowledge?

You have to love it, or you're doing it wrong!

[Whateverist]

What then is the field of philosophy? You just study knowledge?

You have to love it, or you're doing it wrong!

That comes awfully close to what the religious say about finding faith.

[GrandizerII]

Did anyone else notice that's not Sam Harris in the image?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Did anyone else notice that's not Sam Harris in the image?  

All Americans look the same to me