Fil 's Bookmarks tagged schism →  View Popular

According to Rescher, most philosophical debates fit the model of the aporetic cluster; philosophical problems arise because commonsense fundamental beliefs are inconsistent.
>
>
>

Are we doomed, then, to endlessly debate philosophical problems without any hope of resolution? Well, perhaps we are, but so what?
>
>

This is one possible reply, anyway; that consensus is not the point of philosophy. The journey is more important than the finish line, in contrast to science, where the finish line is clearly the goal – discovering a new elementary particle or finding a cure for some debilitating disease – no matter how fascinating the journey.
>
>

But surely there must be at least a
>
>

hope
>
>

of reaching a consensus of some sort? Progress must be seen to be made
>
>

to some extent
>
>

otherwise how can we differentiate between professional philosophy and playground chatter of the “my dad is bigger than your dad!” sort? Scientists can answer the dispute empirically – get the two dads side by side and let's see who is bigger.
>
>

But philosophy does not have this option (unless it utilises science, of course). How, then, do we decide who has the bigger dad? Is there in fact a way to decide or is philosophy doomed to eternal debate, always travelling, never reaching the finish line, except in those rare cases when it is helped across the line by science?
>
>