Everyone, including the readers on this site, have their own personal opinions. If you hold a personal belief you believe the belief to be true. It is not an exception to this rule. I’m certainly definitely not an exception the rule. A significant part of the process of forming personal beliefs is the adoption of definitions that reinforce those convictions. It is apparent that every word or phrase has a distinct one and sole definition that is written in stone. If everything were as clear then it would be nearly impossible to hold a debate as everyone must agree on the most unique and one definition prior to the fact of each term discussed. So, 100 percent of the population would be on board with the entirety of everything. It’s just not the way it is. to operate this way. Sorry for this.
I’m not sure every person will be capable of answering any metaphysical or existential questions. I also doubt that everyone that is capable of understanding what you believe to be profound metaphysical and existential questions actually will be able to give an answer to something. The top priorities or the interests of a few of the people are often not to have anything to do with the things that you and I may refer to as the Big Questions.
Philosophy (of causation , or of anything else) cannot be described as a field that has its postulates written in stone, fixated, fixed to the wall and in any way subject to debate. Philosophical debate is a lot of words, and there’s most likely not any central point, rather central points that are determined by which part of the fence you’re standing on, or perhaps in the middle. If you’re on the left side of the fence, you’ll be unable to comprehend or understand the central argument made by someone on the opposite part of the fence and vice versa. There’s no thing in philosophy that “has to be”, otherwise it wouldn’t even be the case. Philosophy in all practical terms is something which “has to be” something which everyone is able to disagree about, hence the debate.
The Accidental Meta-physician offers thumbs-down to those who sing beyond the field(s) that they specialize in. If you’re not an officially qualified professional philosopher you’re not going to have much credibility on the street when solving questions of the Big Questions. Nix on that view.
It seems that those who has FORMAL knowledge of philosophy has failed to find a solution to those Big Questions. If this were the case, all the Big Questions would no longer be part of the philosophy, but rather be found in the fields of cosmology, physics, neurology or law or somewhere else. There would be no discussion over a prior to the Big Bang and The Copenhagen (or Many Worlds) interpretation of quantum physics, or the free will, dualism or morality.
If professional philosophers take radically different views on particular Big Question, ranging from one extreme to the next extreme, then there’s absolutely no reason that the rest of us people who aren’t well-washed shouldn’t be able to join. The formal education in philosophy gets you nowhere near the truth as an average John Doe who is pondering the same big questions. Philosophy is among the fields that anyone can take part and shine in contrast to medicine, law or other professions areas that require the expertise of experts. Philosophers are all experts because everyone applies philosophical concepts and views to ourselves and all the people around us. I’m not allowed to apply unlicensed medical treatments to myself, and I’d rather avoid being my own attorney, however I’m perfectly content with contemplating my own personal will or lack thereof.
Although it has been alleged that I’m guilty of this, I do not thought that philosophy hadn’t been advancing. All areas of inquiry make progress as newcomers build on the existing knowledge. My issue is that, unlike many other fields the field of philosophy isn’t a professional club that is a’members-only. It’s also not surprising that a willingness to disagree is believed to be a common practice among or among professional philosophers. There have never been so many debates for so long and with such little evidence of a conclusion however according to the Accidental Meta-physician explains that progress is made.
Yet, IMHO, if two (or more) professional philosophers be on completely different opinions on an issue, such things as theology, free will or consciousness as well as how time works and so on. In that case, the formal education they received doesn’t make a difference in the amount of beans, in contrast to the medical profession , where there is some degree of agreement in determining the diagnosis. Siblings who argue over opposites can do so in the same way as professional philosophers and achieve the same outcomes.
Because philosophical questions are inherently unanswerable questions, I put as much faith on the views of John and Jane Doe, and even myself, as the experts. Philosophy is among the few fields in which I can make the decision. I would not trust anyone else for advice regarding legal issues or medical guidance.
Furthermore the subject of philosophy is among the subjects that is learned by oneself, however for maximum results, it’s best to have the support of a sparring partner(s) generally and easily located in the local bar.
Click here na