Philosophy

Are there any bona fide philosophers who have concluded that philosophy is mostly specious rationalized intellectual imagination and raw speculation dressed in the guise of logical argument? When I studied philosophy in school that is how it struck me. For example, I recently read the claim that mathematics is a difficult subject because it deals with infinity but our minds are finite. This strikes me as a perfect example of specious gibberish. I've been looking but have not found a philosopher who is critical of the entire enterprise. Are there any? It seems clear to me that we are creatures of such belief and metaphor that we are easily duped by clever definitions and distinctions and arguments that have no basis in reality. Has this not struck anyone else? If it has, I'd love to read what they say. I mean no disrespect but I am concerned with what is real and what is just elaborate smoke and mirrors, however earnestly created. Thank you. Respectfully, George F.

Comments

Before replying directly to your question, I suggest that what you are expressing is itself a philosophy. It seems to me that you are probably a sceptic (which is a philosophy, in fact there are several schools or types of skeptics) about the ability of persons to engage in the traditional topics of philosophy (metaphysics, ethics, and so on), and you will find some resonance (I suspect) with some of the ancient philosophers like Pyrrho. Sextus Empiricus or Protagoras might also be of interest. But on second thought, your comments about sticking with "what is real" versus "mostly specious rationalized imagination and raw speculation" sounds as though you are NOT a skeptic about what might be called "common sense" and so while Pyrrho may be good in terms of being skeptical about what philosophers try to inquire about the concept of infinity (your example), he may be too overly skeptical for your taste (too much danger of "smoke and mirrors"). There is a school of what is sometimes called "common sense realism." If interested in that approach, you may find the work of Thomas Reid (1710-96) of interest. Reid's chief target philosophically is David Hume (whom he greatly respected), for he does think Hume winds up with a very muddled philosophy due to his mis-describing what seems real to ordinary persons. Roderick Chisholm (who died in 1999) was in this camp, but he by no means thought that all or most of what passes as philosophy is specious etc... Maybe the classic case of a bona fide philosopher dismissing most of the contemporary philosophy of his time would be G.E. Moore (1873-1958). He wrote a famous defense of common sense in a short essay "Refutation of Idealism" (which appeared in the journal Mind, vol. 12). You might find it online. Finally, the latter work of Wittgenstein is often read (perhaps correctly) that all or much of traditional and contemporary philosophy is confused because of its violation of the ordinary usage of words. As he put it, philosophical problems arise when "language goes on holiday." He develops this critique of philosophy in his final book: Philosophical Investigations (1953).

A number of bona fide philosophers have lamented that the practice of philosophy has sometimes yielded quite unhappy results. Cicero wrote that "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it" and Descartes reports this same thing in his Discourse on Method. But I hope you give the field a sympathetic try again. Some of the philosophers I have mentioned may be refreshing, especially Reid's Enquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (1764). As for your example of gibberish: "mathematics is a difficult subject because it deals with infinity but our minds are finite" I do not recall which philosopher (historically or today) made that claim. Philosophers have found the concept of the infinite fascinating, however, from Zeno of Elea on up to Cantor and Dedekind in the 19th century and W.L. Craig today. I believe he has papers on the infinite on his homepage, or you might look for his book The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz. Craig has some interesting points, and I am quite sure he does not make claims about the nature of the infinite (he denies there are or can be actual infinites) based on the size of human brains!

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Philosophy