0

I love thinking about and discussing philosophy; I consider it an extremely important discipline.

But: In mathematics, many results have been discovered that are virtually certain to be true, especially over the past 300 years or so. There now exists a veritable mountain of results, with later results built upon earlier ones.

Excluding that part of philosophy that may be said to overlap with mathematics (like symbolic logic and set theory), are there any results in philosophy that have been generally accepted by philosophers as either certain or nearly certain?

Or on the other hand, are there not really any such results in philosophy? Is philosophy nothing more than an endless series of discussions, devoid of widely accepted conclusions?

Daniel Asimov
  • 646
  • 3
  • 11
  • An endless series of discussions, no certainties. One problem is that philosophy did not give itself a broadly agreed upon verification mechanism for claims, like maths or physics did. Without an accepted verification mechanism, how could you hope to reach any consensus or certainty? – Frank May 31 '23 at 00:56
  • 1
    Philosophy is more than an endless series of discussions, but not in the direction of mathematics. It is an incubator of options, not results. Options include speculative insights, elaborate systems of positions on multiple issues made coherent with each other, and methodological tools for adapting to new facts and paradigms. Certainty and general acceptance are the last things needed in this sort of enterprise. Future is uncertain and what people accept depends on values in addition to facts. Creativity and variety of available options are as essential as mathematical results. – Conifold May 31 '23 at 04:48
  • @Conifold But doesn't that lead to a relativism, meaninglessness and maybe nihilism? Many options for values are created, but no set of values has any claim to authority more than another. Everything becomes _contingent_. It sounds very post-modern, rejecting universals and accepting the loss of "métarécits " à la Lyotard. It's one view on philosophy. – Frank May 31 '23 at 13:41
  • Frank, and Conifold, it is important to include "near-certainties". Because mathematics is the only branch of science (if you will) where certainties exist; whereas in any other science (I'm counting computer science and statistics as aspects of mathematics) all "certainties" in previous eras have been supplanted by newer ones. So, as I see it, full certainty is too much to ask. – Daniel Asimov May 31 '23 at 20:27
  • @Frank Just because there are many options for value systems does not mean that some are not more feasible than others, and philosophers did flash that out by exploring their ramifications at length. But I doubt that "one true value system" is something to wish for, so value pluralism is perfectly warranted, within bounds. Post-modernism is notorious for its relativism about facts, not values, and disdain for any bounds. Too much salt will kill you, it doesn't mean that putting salt on your salad leads to death. – Conifold Jun 01 '23 at 03:20
  • @Conifold You may still have a legitimacy problem. Even if some value systems are more feasible than others, would feasibility alone make the system legitimate, or accepted? And I sense much ambivalence about _ doubt that "one true value system" is something to wish for_ in the same sentence as _within bounds_. Not a problem, but goes to show that these are not easy questions. – Frank Jun 01 '23 at 13:40
  • @Conifold Do you have examples of post-modernism "relativism about facts"? – Frank Jun 01 '23 at 13:59
  • @Frank Don't I ever. "Anything goes" Feyerabend, "all inquiry is interpretation" Rorty, Bloor, Lyotard, Latour, Irigaray, to name the more prominent ones. [Zammito's Nice Derangement of Epistemes](https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo3634623.html) is a good historical analysis of postmodernist relativism:"*Philosophy of science pursued "semantic ascent" into a philosophy of language so "holistic" as to deny determinate purchase on the world of which we speak.*" [Sokal- Brichmont's Fashionable Nonsense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense) is less academic. – Conifold Jun 01 '23 at 15:09
  • @Conifold - It sounds like it's more about saying that any knowledge claim is embedded into some narrative or language and therefore "relative". Isn't it true in some sense that "all inquiry is interpretation"? Which doesn't deny the possibility that some "interpretation" might be more useful to some culture than another? You often hear that postmodernists "deny the possibility of knowledge" or "reject facts", but I think that would be a gross mischaracterization. – Frank Jun 01 '23 at 15:19
  • As applied to some, it wouldn't be. And, alas, too many. Post-truth and alternative facts did not come out of nowhere. – Conifold Jun 01 '23 at 15:23
  • I would have to guess that philosophers tend not to appreciate this kind of question about their discipline. – Daniel Asimov Jun 02 '23 at 15:06
  • I believe death and taxes have been established (philosophically) as a certainty. –  Jun 05 '23 at 05:28

0 Answers0