45

Do you have a proof that we don't hold ourselves to higher standards? There's actually a rather interesting little corner of mathematics called "proof theory." It deals with the question of what a proof is and how can we use them. It starts to look like philosophy from time to time. I think the real difference is that mathematics typically starts with a ...


19

If I'm understanding your question correctly, then you're basically asking "why doesn't philosophy have the same level of rigor as mathematical proof?" I think there's two parts involved in answering this. First, one aspect of philosophy for many philosophers (arguably all) is that philosophy is actually a form of history, meaning we are studying ...


14

Philosophical theories are more like scientific theories than mathematical theories, in that they have empirical content. As such, there aren't any (universally agreed upon) "first principles" that must be respected. Any potential first principles might get discarded if the reasons for doing so are compelling enough. And even if there are some such ...


10

A proof is only as strong as the axioms it is built upon. Mathematics works over a very limited number of strong axioms to work with, which gives it a limited number* of things that can be proven, but the proofs are very strong thanks to the axioms they work with (and prior proofs relying on the same axioms). Philosophy works with much broader field of ...


9

Because it would then cease to be philosophy. Philosophy sees itself as the progenitor of all the sciences, as its questions lead to the paradigm shifts upon which branches of science are founded. To limit itself to a predetermined set of rules would be to strip itself of the flexibility needed to come up with the next new thing. In other words, it is ...


9

Non sequitur I'll go off of the example in the comments, namely “One dollar” = “money” : “Nickel” = “money.” Therefore, “one dollar” = “nickel.” This is non sequitur - there's no logical reason to assume that Therefore. Or, alternatively, this could be ambiguity fallacy as this seems to be caused by (intentional?) misapplication of the symbol "=" with ...


6

This is a question in philosophy that deals with the metaphysics of identity. A classic problem in philosophy is the Ship of Theseus and goes back to the pre-Socratics, particularly Heraclitus and his proposition that one cannot stand in the same river twice. In logic, one often draws a distinction between a name (symbol) and the thing it represents (...


6

To approach this from a slightly different angle, this concept is important in computer programming. In a lot of languages, the programmer can decide what attributes make an object "equal to" another object. For example, if you have two "People" objects represented by "first name", "last name" and "address"; you could choose to say that if the first and ...


5

Another thing I would add is that proofs are built on strong axioms, but also on precise definitions. It's hard to find a precise and universally accepted definition for any complex concept in philosophy. What is life? Soul? What is a cause, an action? What is truth? Those are a much harder to define than a point, a circle or a function (not that they're ...


5

What is stopping the philosophical community from holding themselves to the same standard? The impression that the philosophers' "standards" are not sufficiently high, I think, is due to (1) the apparent lack of progress in solving philosophical puzzles in conjunction with (2) the deceiving simplicity of these puzzles. In fact, nothing stops the ...


4

I do believe you've missed the point of 'duplicate' here. 'Sameness' in this context is a fairly loose and utilitarian construct. Consider: if the temple priestess says she needs a statue of Zeus for entryway, and everyone in the village steps up to sculpt a statue of Zeus, well... the priestess still only needs (and will only use) one of those statues. The ...


3

This is one of the most difficult issues for all of us because of the connection between opinion and knowledge or certainty. Much less attention has been given to the question of what opinions are, and much more to how to ascend from them to knowledge. In our own time the problem is largely neglected because of the assumption that the authority of the ...


3

Absolute time and space Relativity theory radically re-conceptualised space and time, a concept of both philosophical and scientific interest. Newton held an 'absolute' theory of time: 'Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external'. Most 18th and 19th century philosophers who ...


3

Probably quite a bit of Ryle's philosophy has to be brought into play before his position on philosophy and proof is fully clear - if indeed it is fully clear. The following extract may, however, clear a few spots of ground: IN "Proofs in Philosophy ", Professor Ryle points out that " Philosophical arguments can be or fail to be logically powerful ...


2

Let's be clear about context. Terms like 'good', 'right', 'art' and 'beauty', 'knowledge', 'justice', etc are not created out of whole cloth. They refer to... well, something... that has a distinct and powerful impact on the world. People prefer certain experiences to others; they desire certain things above other things. They want the place they live to be ...


2

The essential distinction is this: Mysticism focuses on our subjective experience of the world. Metaphysics focuses on our objective ontological understanding of the world. The core idea in mysticism is that no expression of language can ever fully capture our subjective experience of the world. The richness and detail of subjective experience transcends ...


2

Mysticism tends to be in the rubric of which Wittgenstein spoke as ‘that of which we cannot speak, of that we must remain silent.’ Whereas metaphysics can be spoken about adnauseum!


2

The first thing to keep in mind is that philosophy is primarily concerned with meanings, and that meanings are (to use the old analogy) the water we swim in, and largely invisible to the casual eye. For instance, if we look at your phrase "The goal is truth," a philosopher is likely to say "What do we mean by 'truth'." Of course, we all have intuitions about ...


2

Philosophy is what philosophers do, and what philosophers do is often esoteric and highly specialized. It may have no obvious application beyond the scope of a handful of other philosophers working in the same area, and maybe some interested amateurs. I'm not sure how I personally feel about that, but I only wanted to post this to temper some of the "...


2

This is what Wikipedia says about Stephen David Ross He began in American pragmatism, reading it to question itself fundamentally and to entail the inexhaustibility of nature and reason, the mysteriousness of things. But I guess the most famous example would be Jesus : If a man slap you on one cheek turn the other as well ... If a man take your ...


2

Kant himself brings this up in the third Critique, saying something like, "Some readers have thought it suspicious that my divisions in transcendental philosophy so often come in threes," not the exact words but close... His explanation iirc is that the other divisions are all instances of the scheme of conditions, which is threefold: condition, conditioned, ...


2

I'm not certain whether you're looking for a philosophical or psychological answer to this question, and I suspect the question naturally blurs that distinction in any case, so let me just say this... The natural focus of human cognition is the object. We perceive the world in terms of objects, we define objects in terms of various characteristics and ...


2

To Start: Q1 "What city has the Tower of London?" A: "London" Q2 "What city has Big Ben?" A: "London" ...having the same answer does not always imply equality, or even identity or sameness. Same/Sameness is related to identity. The inability to distinguish one from the other. Equal/Equality is about the relationship between elements, and is a ...


2

It depends on how they are used. Their role may be to avoid, quite properly in some cases, the appearance of uncivil dogmatism. Another possibility is that given how in philosophy there are so many legitimately different lines to take - ideas and arguments which are neither uncontroversially obviously true or false, valid or invalid - that a phrase such as '...


2

It depends on whether or not the opinion is held by an expert or not. Many people and institutions recognize the idea that there is a property called expertise, and that includes jurisprudential reckoning which include expert witnesses. In philosophy the venues tend to be philosophical journals and commercial publishers. Obviously, were Willard V.O. Quine to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible