Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cave Jack's avatar

You really think "I'm free to reject a premise" (whatever that means) shows self-defeat arguments are "quite terrible"? As if "I'm free to reject a premise" shows an argument is "quite terrible".

I also noticed you never actually tried charitably constructing the objection. Just went with an uncharitable reading that's easy to knock down & called it a day, only after dropping emotional buzzwords "it's snarky!" & (ironically) calling it uncharitable.

So maybe you could actually try understanding where objectors are coming from instead of cringely emoting "snarky tho"? (facepalm)

For those who actually care to properly interpret the objection, competent proponents (Joe Schmid & Michael Huemer), as opposed to beginner no-name randos, design the point against a very specific view. (See Schmid's video "Is philosophy useless?" 1:29)

They (correctly) point out that the view (held & defended in academia) that philosophy doesn't produce knowledge implies any defense of such a view wouldn't make you know the view's true, as such a defense would be doing philosophy.

It's very basic. And may not apply to the view you hold FYI.

Finally, you strike me as a philosophy-basher who's heavy on vague platitudes "philosophy functions as an intellectual game rather than a serious approach to solving problems" & lacking on empirics for your crazy grand claims "many philosophers favor style over substance" (no data provided).

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts