NationStates Jolt Archive

The Oxfor English dictionary defines philosophy as: "The Use of argument and reason to establish the truth about reality"

Most modern philosophers no longer believe in objective truth or reality and many would dispute whether or not reason is even able to be communicated anymore.

Therefore philosophy becomes: 'The use of argument'

They should stop calling it philosophy and instead call it Debate with philosophy history (BSc). Confine it to the history books and restart philosophy as a true subject again so that its actually possible to find the truth about reality through argument and reason even if its flawed. Either that or can it completely, Universitys are living on Cloud 9 calling the thing phliosophy.

It is true that many philosophers don't accept objective truth, but is that the same as saying that modern philosphy isn't about finding out the self-experienced truth? I don't think so. SUre I do know almost nothing about todays philosophy, but wasn't even the goal of the logical postivists to find some kind of ultimate answer, despite that their means of doing so differed quite heavily from other, classical schools of thought? The urge of finding the ultimate explanation for EVERYTHING is a uniting factor of all philosophys, I think that what they do mean is self-experienced reality...

That holds if you just remove objective truth but as reality too has been removed then not even subjective experience can be found or at least not believed.

Perhaps then the Oxford dictionary's definition is too archaic to describe modern philosophical thought and should be modified accordingly.

Your prove my point so well. Philosophy remains what it always has been what you think is philosophy is actually something else and should be renamed accordingly, perhaps they can call it rhetoric or argument or perhaps the history of philosophy.

I was under the impression that most modern philosophers today were material monists (who would definately believe in objective truth since materialism holds that everything is material and operates according to specific laws that always hold true).

I would say that philosophy is: "The Use of argument and reason to establish the truth about reality" as is subjective to the thoughts of the current society.

In essence, philosophy is the other half of written history, which deals in events happening at a given time. Philosophy deals with the thoughts of society at a given time. Truely an invalueable tool.

As a definition of philosophy, I am in agreement with you that that definition is archaic.

A definition of such a kind assumes that more than the most basic of truths CAN be defined through the use of argument, and generally disregards basic ideas of epistomology.

If I remember anything from philosophy class in my A/S levels (no I don't pretend to be an expert :p ) it's that beyond the old cogito ergo sum, absolutely nothing about the nature of reality is proveable.

Therefore it follows that facts about the nature of reality cannot be deemed to be true.

Perhaps a better definition would be "Speculation regarding the nature of reality via the use or argument" ?

First of all, the position that there is no objective truth is still an attempt to find truth, just as atheism is a religious argument.

Second, objective vs subjective truth is still hotly debated. For example, many of today's philsophers struggle over whether we really morally have the right to stop genocide if a country's morality allows it. Though you may not learn about them in school, new schools of thought are still developing, and the basic questions are never resolved. There are still great truth seekers in the universities of today, hiding among historians and economists. Political philosophy is especially active. Next time you are in a large library (if you ever are) look at some of the leading philosophical journals. What they discuss is much more than just skill at argument.

As to the cogito ergo sum argument, that was actually used by Descartes to prove stuff, albeit rather poorly.

Political philosophy is especially active.

That is very true, and likely to continue to grow across the world in the immediate future.

Heh Heh Heh...it won't save them though...Heh Heh Heh

But could the objective truth be that: everything is subjective?
(Oooh, deep)


But let's not get into a discussion on the Objective and Subjective - sorry, but I feel that debating it basically undermimes the rest of philosophy as a whole (we do have to accept some truths as objective after all).

The Oxfor English dictionary defines philosophy as: "The Use of argument and reason to establish the truth about reality"

Most modern philosophers no longer believe in objective truth or reality and many would dispute whether or not reason is even able to be communicated anymore.

Therefore philosophy becomes: 'The use of argument'

They should stop calling it philosophy and instead call it Debate with philosophy history (BSc). Confine it to the history books and restart philosophy as a true subject again so that its actually possible to find the truth about reality through argument and reason even if its flawed. Either that or can it completely, Universitys are living on Cloud 9 calling the thing phliosophy.

The use of arguement in that definition most likely mean the use of logic it has nothing to do with people debating each other

A favorite author of mine (a philosopher named Francis Schaeffer) calls most of what has gone on in philosophical thought in the last century anit-philosophy. This is because most (Western) philosophers have given up on the idea of anything that will explain the fundemental questions in life. They instead substitute questions of highly relative personal experience where reason and agrument have no place and semantics. I say Western because I know very little of Eastern philosophy.

I find this to be a gross error and shall attempt to rectify the situation. And I am a philosophy major.

First of all, the position that there is no objective truth is still an attempt to find truth, just as atheism is a religious argument.

Good point,its a common mistake about philosophy. :rolleyes:

Most modern philosophers no longer believe in objective truth or reality and many would dispute whether or not reason is even able to be communicated anymore.


Say what with the what now? What on Earth do you base such an assumption on? Not a single one of my professors at uni took the position you state as being that of "most modern philosophers", and nor did the vast majority of those I read. You're the second person I've heard come out with this baseless nonsense. Who on Earth is teaching this crap?


[me = a little drunk, a little tired, a little bored of pointless Chinese banquets and therefore a little beligerant. But I still can't believe people maintain this line when it has absolutely no bearing on modern philosophical consensus]

we do have to accept some truths as objective after all.

Why?