Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There's No Right or Wrong in...

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 2:59:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Something that I have been thinking about recently, is that there is no right or wrong in philosophy. This was brought to my attention when I heard this from an interview:

"It's very important to realize that when you're speaking specifically about philosophers, you have to be wary of using words like "wrong" and "right." Every man who thinks about reality is not wrong. You may disagree with what they come up with. Or let's say specifically you may disagree with what's called their moral or social philosophy. But that's your interpretation, just as they had interpretations." - Michael Tsarion (Conspiracy Researcher / Philosopher)

====

I remember a while back I was saying how my favorite philosophers were so much greater than the others, but now I regret making such a statement. Obviously I still have favorites, but I know not to condemn others' philosophies.

Any thoughts on this?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:05:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 3:02:36 AM, Puck wrote:
"Every man who thinks about reality is not wrong."

I stopped there. :P

Lol, he's referring to those who inquire about reality, not simply cling to a belief about reality.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:07:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 2:59:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Something that I have been thinking about recently, is that there is no right or wrong in philosophy. This was brought to my attention when I heard this from an interview:

"It's very important to realize that when you're speaking specifically about philosophers, you have to be wary of using words like "wrong" and "right." Every man who thinks about reality is not wrong. You may disagree with what they come up with. Or let's say specifically you may disagree with what's called their moral or social philosophy. But that's your interpretation, just as they had interpretations." - Michael Tsarion (Conspiracy Researcher / Philosopher)

====

I remember a while back I was saying how my favorite philosophers were so much greater than the others, but now I regret making such a statement. Obviously I still have favorites, but I know not to condemn others' philosophies.

Any thoughts on this?

you're right. When it comes to philosophy, there is not "right or wrong." There is only our preception of right and wrong, and that is based on personal opinion. One may consider the death penalty "wrong" while I may consider it "right" but those are personal opinions, not philosophy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:08:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Michael Tsarion (Conspiracy Researcher / Philosopher)

Oh, that explains it.

His quote bears no merit - people may have different interpretations or opinions about a subject matter, but this in no way makes it sound. Epistemological relativism is blegh.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:12:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 3:08:02 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Michael Tsarion (Conspiracy Researcher / Philosopher)

people may have different interpretations or opinions about a subject matter, but this in no way makes it sound. Epistemological relativism is blegh.

I agree, but I don't think he's promoting epistemological relativism. I mean, if there's a philosopher or thinker that you disagree with, do you just say "This guy is completely and utterly wrong. Everything he says is crap."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:15:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 3:13:50 AM, Puck wrote:
"But that's your interpretation, just as they had interpretations"

= relativism

He was specifically talking about morality. If anything, he was possibly alluding to moral relativism.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:18:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 3:15:31 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/3/2010 3:13:50 AM, Puck wrote:
"But that's your interpretation, just as they had interpretations"

= relativism

He was specifically talking about morality. If anything, he was possibly alluding to moral relativism.

Nope. :P

Subject 1 Your Honour!

"It's very important to realize that when you're speaking specifically about philosophers

= Philosophy in general.

Subject 2!

Or let's say

= for example.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:21:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Or let's say specifically you may disagree with what's called their moral or social philosophy. But that's your interpretation, just as they had interpretations." (From the original quote)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:25:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes?

For example, let's say specifically...

He is just highlighting an example within Philosophy where his idea is employed.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:25:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I know from reading his works, that he's not a relativist or one of those people who say "well that's just your opinion." He may have said things that led you to believe that, but it was an unrehearsed interview and may have said things (minor nuances) that weren't thought out in the midst of delivering a point.

He wasn't implying that everything is relative, he was just using language that would help people see that all philosopher's works ought to be respected.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:27:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 2:59:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Something that I have been thinking about recently, is that there is no right or wrong in philosophy. This was brought to my attention when I heard this from an interview:

"It's very important to realize that when you're speaking specifically about philosophers, you have to be wary of using words like "wrong" and "right." Every man who thinks about reality is not wrong. You may disagree with what they come up with. Or let's say specifically you may disagree with what's called their moral or social philosophy. But that's your interpretation, just as they had interpretations." - Michael Tsarion (Conspiracy Researcher / Philosopher)

====

I remember a while back I was saying how my favorite philosophers were so much greater than the others, but now I regret making such a statement. Obviously I still have favorites, but I know not to condemn others' philosophies.

Any thoughts on this?

If ten people come up with ten different answers to a sum then at least nine of them are clearly wrong.
If there is no objective Truth then it matters not whether I hand you a banana or put a knife in your guts.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:27:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 3:25:33 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
he was just using language that would help people see that all philosopher's works ought to be respected.

Just as bad. :P

If I was cynical in such matters (disclaimer: I am) then I would say it's code for:

Treat my ideas with respect, because all ideas are legitimate. :P
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 3:31:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 3:27:22 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
If ten people come up with ten different answers to a sum then at least nine of them are clearly wrong.
If there is no objective Truth then it matters not whether I hand you a banana or put a knife in your guts.

And what if it turns out that the one objective truth is that ALL answers are correct?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 4:05:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 3:31:29 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/3/2010 3:27:22 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
If ten people come up with ten different answers to a sum then at least nine of them are clearly wrong.
If there is no objective Truth then it matters not whether I hand you a banana or put a knife in your guts.

And what if it turns out that the one objective truth is that ALL answers are correct?

Then we break the law of non-contradiction.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 4:23:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 4:05:33 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 2/3/2010 3:31:29 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/3/2010 3:27:22 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
If ten people come up with ten different answers to a sum then at least nine of them are clearly wrong.
If there is no objective Truth then it matters not whether I hand you a banana or put a knife in your guts.

And what if it turns out that the one objective truth is that ALL answers are correct?

Then we break the law of non-contradiction.

Indeed. :) Even for you, Geo, that was bad. :P
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 8:03:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think that obviously objective truth exists, but we don't have any real way of getting at it (or knowing whether we've got it or not). It's out there somewhere, but we're trapped in our senses so we'll never know anything for sure.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 8:50:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That philosopher did say that there's only opinions on what's right or wrong. He didn't say that his philosophy on "what's right or wrong" was indeed right. It was an idea placed on the table for people to look at, and gain a perspective from his opinion on whether it's right or wrong. But there really is no such thing as right or wrong really. Only what people believe is right and wrong. People generally believe that murder is wrong. But does that make it wrong? Some ancient cultures believed that murdering was right. But does that make it right?

Does me saying all of this neccisarily mean I'm right, or wrong? There is only opinions and beliefs on morality.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 8:53:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 4:05:33 AM, mongeese wrote:

Then we break the law of non-contradiction.

Aw! Look at mongeese all growed up... I'm glad I see he learned about that law from our debate at least :p
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 8:55:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 8:54:30 AM, theLwerd wrote:
However if you can defend your position with logic then I guess you can't be proven wrong :)

Yes you can. You can have a logically valid argument, but it can be completely unsound.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 8:57:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 8:54:30 AM, theLwerd wrote:
However if you can defend your position with logic then I guess you can't be proven wrong :)

Well there is always the case where the person who can't defend there logic, simply is un-educated about the subject. Which I don't believe makes them wrong on the subject, simply un-educated on it. There's always someone out there who could properly defend it and even prove the other side to be relatively "Wrong".
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 9:02:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 8:55:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 2/3/2010 8:54:30 AM, theLwerd wrote:
However if you can defend your position with logic then I guess you can't be proven wrong :)


Yes you can. You can have a logically valid argument, but it can be completely unsound.

I thought that was understood, but you are correct.
President of DDO
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 9:05:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 9:02:31 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/3/2010 8:55:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 2/3/2010 8:54:30 AM, theLwerd wrote:
However if you can defend your position with logic then I guess you can't be proven wrong :)


Yes you can. You can have a logically valid argument, but it can be completely unsound.

I thought that was understood, but you are correct.

Well, you can't use logic for soundness - so no
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 11:20:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 9:05:00 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 2/3/2010 9:02:31 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/3/2010 8:55:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 2/3/2010 8:54:30 AM, theLwerd wrote:
However if you can defend your position with logic then I guess you can't be proven wrong :)


Yes you can. You can have a logically valid argument, but it can be completely unsound.

I thought that was understood, but you are correct.


Well, you can't use logic for soundness - so no

I never said that you could. I thought it was understood that the premises would be sound.
President of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2010 11:48:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/3/2010 9:05:00 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 2/3/2010 9:02:31 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/3/2010 8:55:23 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 2/3/2010 8:54:30 AM, theLwerd wrote:
However if you can defend your position with logic then I guess you can't be proven wrong :)


Yes you can. You can have a logically valid argument, but it can be completely unsound.

I thought that was understood, but you are correct.


Well, you can't use logic for soundness - so no

An invalid argument is when the logic is flawed and an unsound argument is when the premises are false, correct?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat