I find I have very little patience with re-litigating well established philosophical debates. I also find that such re-litigation seems so profuse in online spaces as to be the rule rather than the exception.
On the one hand, I suppose I get how some of these arguments are new to some people, so there’s some benefit for those people to mentally engage with them. I don’t however see the point in engaging with them to those for which it is well trodden territory.
Examples of such debates: Empiricism vs Rationalism, Realism vs. Idealism
I would suggest that a good rule of thumb would be that if the debate has existed for over 100 years in it’s current form (no one has advanced an argument that is new in any meaningful sense), then it is unlikely that further debate is going to lead to anything new and worthwhile. Personally, I doubt I could add anything interesting that hasn’t already been said on such subjects.
I’d suggest a few reasons why such debates may not have made any progress:
The debate, in the terms it’s traditionally framed in, is ultimately trivial. That is to say that if it were somehow demonstrated that either traditional “side” was uncontroversially correct, it wouldn’t logically entail that I change anything about how I go about leading my life. I think this is true of the realism vs. idealism debate.
The debate is framed in a way that isn’t useful (often as a false dichotomy). Rationalism vs empiricism, or nature vs nurture seems like this to me.
Philosophy is in general divergent in its theories and there seems to be so sign of reconciliation, and this forum does permit old disputes from opening up once again. It doesn’t get any more classic than an argument for or against the existence of God. I agree.
Good call. Also points for mentioning tenderfoots engaging in ancient unresolved debates. I was and am very bad at arguing (debating). Watching debates online has been entertaining and informative for me. People seem to be paying to watch live debates and the question-answer sessions are always a treat.
There are numerous versions of these arguments. Many are well established territory, but there are at least a few new ones. Michael Behe’s case for design, although I think it’s been ultimately shown to fail, is an attempt at using statistics to demonstrate the likelihood of a designer. The fine tuning argument, while being similar to older apologetics, is actually new, and different in some important ways. I’d add that my personal argument against God is not one I’ve heard before… although I don’t think this is the place to get into it.
I’d add a third reason: The debate is non-substantive; that is, it winds up being about how to use certain linguistic expressions, and not about whatever it is the expressions denominate. Mere verbal disputes, in other words. They are irresolvable because there is no dictionary in which we can look up the “correct” philosophical meaning of words like “exist,” “real,” “good”, “substance”,“ought”, et al. That’s because philosophical definitions or usages tend to be ameliorative – prescriptive as often as descriptive.
By no means all philosophical disputes are non-substantive, though.
Don’t agree actually. I got into all this secondly because none of the old famous philosophers had modern physics to ground their base premises, and the vast majority of the more recent ones (last century) also seem oblivious to physics.
So I learned physics, at least enough to know the philosophical implications of the various findings. I find that all the old questions seem to presume classical Newtonian views, questions such as ‘what caused the big bang?’ and such. ‘Who am I?’
The territory I tread seems pretty new to me. I cannot find a single published view that gets close to most of the conclusions I get from trying to stay consistent with physics.
I say ‘secondly’ above. First event was my being educated in a protestant parochial school which taught that (my) religion was not in conflict with science. All was good in the world. Few years later, the fundamentalists (Kansas??) apparently declared open war on science, shattering what I’d been taught. I felt forced to choose. I experimented with questioning the axiom that the Bible was a divine work, and the pieces fell together so quickly I was awestruck.
Only after that did I notice that all the literature out there was written by those seemingly pretty ignorant of science, and the philosophy put out by scientists showed way too many biases that I thought needed questioning.
Can you give me an example of a traditional philosophical debate that hasn’t changed in the last 100 years that you think is informed by modern physics? Certainly any disagreement based on a “billiard ball” model of determinism has certainly changed in the past 100 years.
I don’t agree. I think debate is useful for the minds engaged in it, even old hands. It’s skill-building.
Someone mentioned “Does God exist?” Well, if everyone thought the debate closed, what would we do with our time? And maybe someone has a new way of seeing the question.
I’m also one who thinks we are constantly redefining words and building different things with them, creating new linguistic paths.
I don’t see how rehashing pre-existing static positions develops skills beyond how the generic “pick any side of a position and debate for it” can give practice in pure rhetoric. There’s certainly nothing special about philosophical subjects for this skill.
“Does God exist” is a general question that includes many specific arguments. In my experience, most of these arguments are rehashing of the traditional old arguments, and they are tedious as fuck. The fact that people keep engaging with them isn’t evidence they are valuable. There are however novel arguments, and they are at least potentially interesting.
You don’t have to just believe it, it’s a demonstrable fact that people are doing that. I’m not sure how that relates to my post.
I am enormously impressed with the diversity of philosophical ideas available to draw upon for discussing the issues you mention. The great thing about this smorgasbord of worldviews is that none of them simply follows the footsteps of “well-established debates”. How could they when it is the hallmark of original philosophy that they redefine the meaning of philosophical concepts, which pre-empts the possibility of a mere recycling of old debates?
Debates, such as those involving consciousness, have developed over time. Other debates have remained essentially stagnant. It is the latter that I have no patience with, and which seem abundant.
I don’t see arguments as static objects. Maybe that’s our difference. I just see human minds working to change or refine their worldviews. That’s what debate is about for me. And I’m especially happy when my own worldview changes. The best way I’ve found to make that happen is to engage another mind directly, in argument.
So it’s not about rhetorical skills, although that’s certainly a part of it. When we have better rhetoric, we have a better way of understanding the world. I don’t think I can really understand philosophical concepts unless I can say them. Actually, unless I can paraphrase them two or three different ways.
Well, if we want to master photography, we can go to a photography forum. But if we want to become stronger thinkers, I think a philosophy forum is a better place.
If that’s how you feel, I understand. I don’t feel that way. I am excited to meet a new mind which sees things differently than I do. I want to hear how that person integrates his worldview. Maybe he has a new and unusual concept of God. I’d want to hear that and then press him to see if he can defend it.
Well, if we are coming up with new ways of speech, new metaphors and concepts, then we can use them on old arguments—rearranging the furniture.
Anyway, is there really such a thing as a new argument—an idea which hasn’t already been discussed ad nauseum by earlier folk?
Have debates about idealism vs realism in toto remained stagnant, or does this depend on how a particular philosophy understands these terms? Is phenomenology realist or idealist? Where does the later Wittgenstein or Heidegger stand on this issue, and which reading of them are we talking about?
Of the huge variety of idealism s and realisms floating around our there, it would seem we would have to confine ourselves to a very narrow subset in order to produce a stagnant debate.
Okay, I think that covers dealing with arguments that are new to you. Perhaps you haven’t had the experience of repeating the same arguments to new people to rebut the same arguments made by different people. I certainly have.
Not sure where that came from. I did refer to online discourse broadly, but I never said anything about this forum.
Right, and an unusual concept of God wouldn’t be rehashing the same old debate, which is what I’m commenting on. I am fully in favor of new and novel arguments to old questions.
Strange point to make, as it undermines everything else you’ve said. I think new arguments are possible, but if they aren’t, as you seem to be suggesting, then that kind of makes my point for me.
I’ve written millions of words in debate. But I’m not sure you are understanding what I’m trying to express. There is a sense in which I don’t believe in ‘arguments’. Yes, I know there are some with fancy names, but those just don’t interest me. I’m interested in minds and worldviews and the particular language each person uses when engaging an argument.
And there are no two minds which will argue the same way… whatever the subject matter. And so I am eternally happy at debate. I meet new minds every day. Where else can a person do that?
I didn’t say anything about this forum, either.
Maybe I just misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying nothing especially rhetoric-building about philosophical debate. But I find philosophical debate to be handy for that.
OK, well, I guess I don’t understand. I engage old arguments to meet new arguments. If a thread is titled “Does God Exist?”, I will go there and see if anyone has a new God on display.
I asked a question. I don’t know why you think I made a point.
I am questioning whether the categories of ‘new argument’ and ‘old argument’ are real enough to be useful. You seem to think so, but I have trouble seeing an argument as an objective thing.
Can you give me an example of an old argument? The argument itself, rather than just its name.
If I make a suggestion, it will be in my words, as a proposition. I will say something like, “New arguments are impossible.”
But I doubt I would say something like that. It sounds silly.
What if, by returning to ancient discussions, we approach them with a new perspective, one specific to modern times?
For example, the Platonic division of body and soul is discussed completely differently at different times; the context of the discussion is entirely different.
That is, by returning to a topic that seems long-established, we, through our present-day perspective, notice nuances that were simply invisible before.
