What I find inconsistent about philosophy critics is that they, themselves, are advocating for a philosophy. Apparently if it doesn't produce enough "advances" for them (however they define that) it just isn't good enough. Never mind that what exactly constitutes "advancement" or "good" or "science" is a philosophical question in itself. The philosophy-critic usually simply yells and asserts more when you bring this up.
That isn't to say that philosophers help their case when they ask silly questions. However, even silly questions, like the obscure sub-fields of science or Bible study, can often produce real advances in their fields. The problem usually lies where someone comes up with a silly answer to a silly question and everyone assumes that is what philosophers do, like when some fool answers a question like "Do we exist?" by answering "No." or "We're not sure."
What I find inconsistent about philosophy critics is that they, themselves, are advocating for a philosophy. Apparently if it doesn't produce enough "advances" for them (however they define that) it just isn't good enough. Never mind that what exactly constitutes "advancement" or "good" or "science" is a philosophical question in itself. The philosophy-critic usually simply yells and asserts more when you bring this up.
ReplyDeleteThat isn't to say that philosophers help their case when they ask silly questions. However, even silly questions, like the obscure sub-fields of science or Bible study, can often produce real advances in their fields. The problem usually lies where someone comes up with a silly answer to a silly question and everyone assumes that is what philosophers do, like when some fool answers a question like "Do we exist?" by answering "No." or "We're not sure."