RE: Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?
February 23, 2022 at 10:12 am
(This post was last modified: February 23, 2022 at 10:31 am by polymath257.)
(February 23, 2022 at 12:50 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:(February 22, 2022 at 9:58 am)polymath257 Wrote: I would not call this knowledge. It is a refinement of her opinion.
Why not?
Isn't eliminating the false what leads to genuine progress in science? Isn't that why we want falsifiable hypotheses? Because, if we falsify it, we will have learned something? We will have gained knowledge... A lot of what Galileo did was disprove the old theory. And in doing so, he increased our knowledge. Doesn't disproving a widely accepted theory get you a Nobel Prize? THAT'S eliminating something.
The difference, as I see it, is that the ethicist simply doesn't like the consequences of DCT. it violates some intuition she has about morality and *that* is what makes it unacceptable.
In the sciences, the disproof is through actual observation showing the idea is wrong. It isn't just that we dislike it (and, in fact, it might well be a cherished idea). it is that the actual evidence shows it is wrong.
Quote:I know that the case for divine command theory is weak. Before I read Euthyphro, I thought, sure, maybe without God, there can be no actual morality. After having read it, I'm convinced that God's existence or nonexistence simply cannot have anything to do with objective morality. Have I not learned something in seeing that DCT can be ruled out? Don't I now know something that I didn't know before? Sure, I haven't solved all ethics, but by knowing that A isn't true, now I can say "It's either B,C,D or E."[/quote]
Except that you probably haven't actually ruled out DCT. You have simply come to a place where your intuitions conflict with it.
And that is a bit of self-knowledge: that your intuitions don't agree with the consequences of DCT. But that alone isn't a reason to reject DCT. It may mean you simply have to change your intuitions about morality.
For example, the results of quantum theory are very counter-intuitive to most people (especially at the start). But that does not make them wrong. It simply means our intuitions are wrong.
The question is whether there is a standard from which we can test ethical theories and determine that they are wrong in some objective way. I am open to that as a possibility. But I have yet to see such. And that is why they don't form 'knowledge' and are still in the realm of 'educated opinion'.
No astronomer currently uses Ptolemy's system for understanding the solar system. It has been shown wrong. it isn't even a good approximation (unlike, say, Newtonian mechanics). Galileo made observations that show it to be wrong. But there are still people today who subscribe to DCT, even among educated ethicists.
(February 23, 2022 at 2:33 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:
Interesting version. I think I still prefer the Kansas version, though.
(February 22, 2022 at 11:18 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: What's funny to me, in Bill and Ted's surprising profundity, my interest in philosopy was born the first moment I heard "Dust in the Wind" by Kansas playing on the school bus radio. How can one bear the fact of one's own appartent insignificance?
To some people that question seems more salient. YMMV
I love that song.
I guess I have studied astronomy, cosmology, and paleontology for so long that my *complete* insignificance seems totally normal.
But I have also been very aware of my own mortality since I was a young child. I had very severe asthma and allergies and I knew that if I ate the wrong cookie or climbed the wrong tree I could die. And I had childhood experiences where I did, in fact, nearly die.
The concept of my own non-existence and insignificance has always been with me.
