As an example, an enormous amount of effort seems to go into thinking about solipsism. In my view, and as an example, solipsism is easily eliminated by reasonable inference. Reasonable inference is a rational process. So, is it preferable to strive for simplicity through reasonable argumentation?
8
-
1IMO philosophy is about critical discussion of "common knowledge": prejudices, clichés, received opinions and point of view, in order to understand their grounds (if any). The same for the "common sense" view about the existence of an external reality as well as the "common sense" absurdity of solipsism.– Mauro ALLEGRANZACommented Aug 28 at 9:46
-
3I suspect the amount of focus on solipsism you find here (at least recently), by amateur philosophers, is not representative of the amount of time professional philosophers spend thinking about it (especially given that one or two users have each asked half a dozen questions about that). My impression is that people have largely said their piece about the topic, concluded one of various things (e.g. other minds are unprovable, it's unprovable through deduction but reasonably inferable through abduction, other minds is a "brute fact" or they don't exist) and moved on to talk about other stuff.– NotThatGuyCommented Aug 28 at 12:04
-
2On a philosophical forum, it also behooves us (ahum) to consider the questions behind a question -- the question or questions leading to a particular question and to explicitly address those. This is especially relevant, imo, for "poorly formulated" or so-called "opinionated" questions, or for "leading questions". (Practically all questions are in one way or the other "leading questions" -- especially on this forum).– mudskipperCommented Aug 28 at 15:02
-
2@Meanach As an idea, what if you added something like, "Do philosophers have any systems for determining which topics deserve more overall focus than others? I.e., a sort of 'meta-philosophy', or philosophy of philosophy, in this regard?" I've also voted to reopen as-is, because I think a lot of people have this question, and it seems like this is a great place for philosophers to give an answer.– Peter RankinCommented Aug 28 at 15:31
-
2Reasonable inference is irrational? Perhaps the meaning of my question has been irrationally inferred? Btw, solipsism was given as an example. My question is not about solipsism per se. It is about overthinking.– MeanachCommented Aug 29 at 7:39
|
Show 3 more comments
2 Answers
See Gilbert Ryle, Dilemmas. The Tarner Lectures 1953 (1964):
THERE are different sorts of conflicts between theories. One familiar kind of conflict is that in which two or more theorists offer rival solutions of the same problem. In the simplest cases, their solutions are rivals in the sense that if one of them is true, the others are false. More often, naturally, the issue is a fairly confused one, in which each of the solutions proffered is in part right, in part wrong and in part just incomplete or nebulous. There is nothing to regret in the existence of disagreements of this sort. Even if, in the end, all the rival theories but one are totally demolished, still their contest has helped to test and develop the power of the arguments in favour of the survivor.
However, this is not the kind of theoretical conflict with which we shall be concerned. I hope to interest you in quite a different pattern of disputes, and, therewith, in quite a different sort of settlement of these disputes.
There often arise quarrels between theories, or, more generally, between lines of thought, which are not rival solutions of the same problem, but rather solutions or would-be solutions of different problems, and which, none the less, seem to be irreconcilable with one another. A thinker who adopts one of them seems to be logically committed to rejecting the other, despite the fact that the inquiries from which the theories issued had, from the beginning, widely divergent goals.
In a nutshell, philosophy is discussing and argumenting pro and con different irreducible point of views.
answered Aug 28 at 14:37
This is a bit like asking whether athletes tend to over-move. The difference between athletes and non-athletes is that athletes move well, in effective and coordinated manners. Non-athletes are prone to being clumsy, spastic, out of balance, frenetic; they don't move enough, or they move too much in wild and unproductive directions. Likewise, the difference between philosophers and non-philosophers is that philosophers think well.
Not too many proper philosophers think much about solipsism, except in a pedagogical mode. Lots of lay philosophers are invested in the concept because it is emotionally challenging and stimulating. It is almost the definition of a sophomoric concept, in that it's mainly covered in sophomore level philosophy classes, and then left by the wayside for more interesting intellectual avenues. But it has a certain 'meme' quality that gives it legs in more casual discussions.
You know what I mean… it's a fun topic, but not all that serious.
-
-
1When athletes over-move they injure themselves. Good philosophers think well. Overthinking is damaging.– MeanachCommented Aug 29 at 20:34