To be "for or against" is not to do philosophy
Debate Rounds (3)
This site is for the "for or against".
But modern philosophy is against the "for or against". To be for or against the "for or against" is not a paradox. To be for the "for or against" is to be limited to it. To be against it is not to be limited to it.
Wittgenstein, a modern philosopher, was not limited to the for or against. A "for or against" always has the same foundations for both positions. He challenged their foundations, and so dissolved the problems and issues posed by the"for or against".
Modern philosophy is about the dissolution of the problem and the solution, not the problem and the solution. The dissolution of problems challenges foundations. Solutions do not.
Thus to be for the "for or against" is first to fight for the existence of the problem, and then to provide the solution. This is not to do philosophy. Modern philosophers are against the problem and the solution. This makes them unpopular.
Thus, this site does not do modern philosophy because it is for the problem, for the solution - for the "for or against".
To substantiate my negation, I will use two arguments:
Contention I - Philosophy was designed to challenge the status quo of thinking
Philosophy is not about agreement; rather, philosophy is about challenging the way other people think. My opponent tries to say that by viewing issues in terms of being for against them that we violate principles of modern philosophy. But really, if we did NOT challenge a philosophical mindset we wouldn't be doing philosophy. By negating, by taking a "for or against" opinion on the topic (in this case against), I am very much doing philosophy.
Contention II- Philosophy is thinking. Period.
Who can philosophize? Anyone. Anyone with a brain can do philosophy. Therefore, everyone is a philosopher, either famous or not. That being said, when my opponent says that it challenges "modern philosophy," he really means that it is challenging what a few people believe. Most modern philosophy (by my definition) looks at problems and solutions, even though Wittgenstein's "modern" philosophy didn't.
Thus I urge a vote in negation. Now for my rebuttal.
As my opponent wrote: "Modern philosophy is about the dissolution of the problem and the solution, not the problem and the solution. The dissolution of problems challenges foundations. Solutions do not." I urge that you accept my definition of modern philosophy, which is the way that the majority of people think. As I stated in contention 2, everyone philosophizes.
My opponent further writes: "Thus to be for the "for or against" is first to fight for the existence of the problem, and then to provide the solution. This is not to do philosophy. Modern philosophers are against the problem and the solution. This makes them unpopular." If what my opponent calls "modern philosophers" are unpopular, then that means that it contradicts the philosophies that most people hold. Therefore, since most people who are for the "for or against" have independent thought and philosophy, we can deduce that those that disagree with "modern philosophy" are themselves philosophizing.
Thus I see no ballot but of that in negation.
This places a limit on argument itself. Yet the public use of the word philosophy also indicates that, for philosophy, there is no such limit.
Hence the public use of the word philosophy is at best a collection of differing meanings or uses. Thus there is no single, coherent, public use of this word. Rather, the public take the meaning of the word "philosophy" from the way they think philosophers use the term.
"Hence the public use of the word philosophy is at best a collection of differing meanings or uses. Thus there is no single, coherent, public use of this word. " As my opponent stated, the definition of philosophy is ambiguous. The definitions are seemingly endless. And, as I stated, taking a "for or against" approach is very much still philosophy, at least by one definition. That being said, the only argument made by my opponent in the rebuttal actually negated, not affirmed.
Additionally, my opponent did not talk about the philosophical merit of being "for or against" something. He merely talked about definitions. Therefore, the burden of proof was not met by the pro.
That being said, move with me onto my case.
Contention I- Philosophy was designed to challenge the status quo of thinking
I stated that since I am taking a stance against a philosophical principle, I am both A) taking a stance against something, while B) using philosophy. The very existence of this contention proves that a "for or against" stance still permits philosophical reasoning. Furthermore, this contention was not attacked by my opponent, meaning that he agrees with it.
Contention II- Philosophy is thinking. Period.
I stated that philosophy is anybody thinking about an issue, and that "modern philosophy" is therefore the way that the majority of people think. My opponent stated that the definition of philosophy is ambiguous. To rebut, I shall provide a definition from "The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:" "the sum of the ideas and convictions of an individual or group." Therefore, who can philosophize? Anybody. That being said, since my opponent states that most people view problems in terms of their solution, being "for against" something is indeed philosophizing.
And it is for these reasons and many more that I firmly yet respectfully urge a vote in negation on today's ballot.
This limits thinking to the for and against, and most people would not say that philosophy is a limit on thinking.
Therefore, most people would not say that to do philosophy is to do it the way most people do it.
I stated that philosophy was designed to challenge the way the majority of people think, and that placing a limit on philosophy would be impossible. My opponent erroneously stated that I was the one limiting philosophy, but, as proven above, I am not.
My second contention was that any thought constitutes philosophy. My opponent stated that this means we can only view things in terms of being "for or against" something, but this simply is not the case. Any thought, from anybody, constitutes
Finally, I would like to prove one last point. We are debating whether or not you can be "for or against" something and still be philosophizing. My opponent is for this, I am against this, and we are both using philosophy. Therefore, the entire debate disproves the resolution.
In conclusion, there are many ways to do philosophy, and being "for or against" something is one of them, albeit not the only way. Philosophy is designed to challenge the mind and break the limits, and by affirming, my opponent states that being for against something imposes limits. This very debate disproves this.
For these reasons and many more I firmly yet respectfully urge a con vote.
Thank you, and good debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and spelling are both tied. It was a civil and legible debate on both sides. Arguments go to Con. Pro's case was incoherent and self-defeating; his logic failed to prove anything about the resolution, and at times he seemed to be arguing against his own case. He wanted to show that a specific type of thinking is not valid philosophy, yet his arguments made philosophy out to be an extremely vague and varied field in which just about anything goes. The fact that he did not see the contradiction speaks volumes. Con's arguments were sound and thorough. Sources tied.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate