ভূমিকা

Shiavault - a Vault of Shia Islamic Books Scepticism About Philosophy Some Inadequate Defences =========================== In this section, I discuss some anti-sceptical defences of philosophy I have encountered. The defences are individually and collectively unsatisfactory. Each defence captures something important, and collectively they may justify pursuing philosophy.

However, they do not show that we can regard philosophy as producing the right sort of value—true answers to philosophical questions. It is not necessary to go into much depth with these defences, because it can be shown rather quickly that they are not the right type of defence. Recall that the agnostic about philosophical issues is considering pursuing philosophy with the goal of getting true answers to philosophical questions.

This outsider sees the degree of dissensus and thinks to herself, ‘At most one of these theories for any given issues is correct. It’s possible that if I study philosophy, I will produce a new theory that competes with these others. Each of these philosophers thinks her own theory is more likely to be true than her competitors’ theories. I realize that if I study philosophy, I will come to think that way about whatever theories I come to accept as well.

However, from my standpoint now, I have to regard each of the competing theories as something like equally likely to be true, or perhaps likely to be true in proportion to how many good philosophers accept the theory. It’s possible none of them are true. If so, then much more likely than not, I will end up accepting a false theory.

So, I should remain an outsider and an agnostic.’ The general problem with the defences listed below is that even if they give this outsider good reasons to study philosophy and to accept doctrines rather than be agnostic, these defences do not give the right kind of reason. I.e., they do not give proper epistemic defences of philosophy. Some of the other defences fail because they rest on bad arguments, even if are attempts at proper epistemic defences. A. The Argument Undermines Itself .

There is a facile defence: The Argument against Philosophy undermines itself. The general position that philosophy is irrational fails to pass self-inspection. ‘Philosophy is irrational’ is a philosophical position. If philosophy is irrational, so is the view that philosophy is irrational.