What's the point of philosophy any more?

[The Grand Nudger]

There truly -wouldn't- be a point to philosophy anymore without those different positions existing to be argued between each other.

It wouldn't be an active search for anything, just a list of dogma.

[Edwardo Piet]

To  be fair, you weren't exactly clear, Khem. But I had no idea there were those arguing the other side... found an interesting article on google, so thanks.

Yeah, I mean he says "math is a posteriori" and then says he was just alluding to an alternative position, as if he had no attachment to it.

Personally I find Khem to be a rather disingenuous debater who backpedals and strawmans people a lot, and I say that just to give my opinion of him and warn others of wasting their time expecting straightforward responses from him like I have over the years.

I mean, WLC is considered one of the best Christian debaters by many, and he's as disingenuous as they come. Seeking the truth and being right is more important than seeming right and being declared a winner of debates, regardless of what is true and who and what is actually right.

Of course, I could be wrong about Khem, but I doubt it. My experience tells me otherwise.

Now, I could be mistaken about my experience and I urge others to experience Khem for themselves so as to not poison the well, but there's my 2 cents on Khem for whatever it's worth.

---

There truly -wouldn't- be a point to philosophy anymore without those different positions existing to be argued between each other.

The fact the opposite position exists doesn't mean it isn't plain wrong.

[SaStrike]

Philosophy asks and answers different questions than science -- questions science can't answer, such as Popper's rationalism and the consequences which follow for scientific thought.

For my part, I see our understanding of reality as a three legged stool, consisting of equal parts science, mathematics, and philosophy. Science can no more replace philosophy than science can replace math.

Does philosophy answer Popper's rationalism?

[Edwardo Piet]

It wouldn't be an active search for anything, just a list of dogma.

Coming to correct conclusions via valid reasoning from sound premises and deciding that the opposite is therefore incorrect doesn't mean the search ends or that the correct position is "dogma".

Dogma is what happens when you aren't interested in being rational at all and when you start with conclusions and confirmation bias rather than premises and logic. Dogma is NOT what happens when you reach a correct conclusion logically and discover that the alternative is logically impossible... and the fact that there are others who still can't see it doesn't mean it hasn't been seen. You are one of those folks who mixes up certainty and dogmatism. It's perfectly rational to be certain that squares have four sides that 2+2=4, that X is X and that those who disagree are wrong and confused. Either you understand something or you don't, and the fact that some people don't and offer alternative views doesn't mean that one view isn't certainly right for reasons that actually make sense. Moral relativism is bad enough but being relative about truth and logic and math is absolutely absurd. Sure, it's fine for the absurd position to exist... but it doesn't mean that the non-absurd position isn't non-absurd. In fact explaining the reasons why the alternative position is absurd is a great way to explain why and how the non-absurd position is correct. The truly best way to demonstrate the correctness of a position is to show that the alternative is logically impossible.

[The Grand Nudger]

A list of dogma asserted would still be asserted dogma even if it managed, or happened... to get something right.

Can you appreciate, at least, that the thrust of philosophy halts as soon as something is taken to be incontrovertibly true, and that we have..based upon our understanding of many given x's in the past...done precisely that. Halted that work, asserted x to be incontrovertibly true, deriding any counter-position? Let's take an example we both agree on. We're both atheists. Goddism was the majority position of philosophy for centuries. Incontrovertably true as demonstrated by logical demonstration after logical demonstration after logical demonstration. Emperically verified by every miraculous this or that.

[Edwardo Piet]

A list of dogma asserted would still be asserted dogma even if it managed, or happened... to get something right.

The position that something actually does or does not make sense is as anti-dogmatic as it gets. Without accepting the fact that some things don't make sense it's not even possible to draw the distinction necessary to make sense of anything.

My position is that some positions objectively are certainly correct for reasons. If you throw away the fact that X is X and those who say otherwise are confused, you're aiding dogma rather than battling against it.

Again, you confuse certainty with dogma. All dogma involves certainty but not all certainty involves dogma. What makes something dogmatic is about the process that a person becomes certain of something... not whether they are certain or not.

If I'm certain that a square has 4 sides because that's what a square is so to say it doesn't literally makes no sense, that's not the same as someone being certain that the moon is made of cheese based on nothing but non-sequiturs and delusions.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and theirs is that some other thing is objectively certainly correct for reasons.  

Both cases are stated, both cases weakness and merit is assessed.  This is philosophy.  The point of philosophy even.

[Edwardo Piet]

Can you appreciate, at least, that the thrust of philosophy halts as soon as something is taken to be incontrovertibly true

No because that's nonsense.

Philosophy would only halt if EVERYTHING was taken to be inconvertibly true. And even that wouldn't matter if literally the correct answer to everything had somehow been discovered. That won't happen, no one is omniscient or capable of figuring out the truth or not about everything. But if someone was omniscient and did know everything, then they would be omniscient and know everything so it would be absurd to say they were dogmatic.

Someone THINKING they absolutely have the correct answer is different to someone actually absolutely having the correct answer because the alternative has really demonstrated to be impossible. There really are truths that you can be absolutely certain of, and in fact... they are *so* certain.... that in many cases the person doesn't even believe they aren't certain, they just think they don't. If you think you don't know that your consciousness exists, then you think you don't but you actually do. If you think you don't know that a square is a square, then once again... you're confused. It's not that you don't know it. You do know it you just don't know that you don't know it. If you are conscious of the reality of something, you don't magically become not conscious of it just because you think you don't. Just because you're deluded about what you experience doesn't mean that what you are experiencing is an illusion. Illusions and delusions are quite different. Thinking you don't see something when you do because you are conceptually confused is different to seeing something that isn't there because you are perceptually confused.

[The Grand Nudger]

There really are truths that you can be absolutely certain of, 

-and that may be the case.  Note here, even, that we're required to say may...but a person can agree with you there...and disagree with you on the contents of that set.  Asserting that your set is the incontrovertible set is not philosophy..it is the assertion of dogma. It might even be true.....but it;s still dogma....and you'll appreciate this...it;s dogma by definition.

[Edwardo Piet]

There really are truths that you can be absolutely certain of, 

-and that may be the case.  Note here, even, that we're required to say may...but a person can agree with you there...and disagree with you on the contents of that set. 

But we aren't required to say may and the fact someone is capable of disagreeing with the correct position is irrelevant.

Universal agreement is not a prerequisite for one particular answer being absolutely correct to agree with because it's correct. 0% of people could agree that X is X, 50% of people could agree that X is X, 100% of people could agree that X is X... it makes no difference who agrees with what, X is X.

Asserting that your set is the incontrovertible set is not philosophy..it is the assertion of dogma.  It might even be true.....but it;s still dogma....and you'll appreciate this...it;s dogma by definition.

Something isn't dogma just because you say it is. Something has to actually be dogmatic for it to be dogma. There's nothing less dogmatic than starting from a sound premise.

Starting with an irrelevant conclusion is dogmatic, and saying that everything is true or all opinions are equal may be less dangerous, but it's equally absurd. And in many ways it still is dangerous... because moral relatvism is dangerous. Not as dangerous as dogmatic moralism but it's still dangerous. If you can't morally justify yourself to intervene with another culture torturing their children because of moral relativism, and you follow moral relativism because you think truth is realtive, then that's an example where the absurd position of "all opinions are equal" and "truth is relative" is very dangerous, as well as absurd.

The Trumpy "post-truth" era that we now live in is another example of the danger of your absurd position. The notion that objectively speaking "anything is permissible" really ought not to be permissible and for very good (and rational) reasons. The idea that we can emote and express that X is wrong but it's only as good as anyone else's opinion because we can't even be sure that X is X, is not just absurd but ultimately dangerous. Not all opinions are equal because some opinions actually make sense, is not the same as dogma where it's not even about making sense.

Once again, dogma and absolute certainty are not the same thing. It's why someone is absolutely certain that decides whether they're dogmatic or just damn correct. Dogmatic people hold onto certain positions irrationally.

Being absolutely certain that a square is a square is not dogmatic... and if you think it is, then you don't even understand the meaning of the word. You are very confused.