Difference between revisions of "Fallacies Of Philosophy"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Philosophy]] | [[Category:Philosophy]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Fallacies|200]] | ||
{{DES | des = A great deal of philosophy is grossly misleading from the very start.}} | {{DES | des = A great deal of philosophy is grossly misleading from the very start.}} | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
=== Philosophers frequently rely on illogic. === | === Philosophers frequently rely on illogic. === | ||
| − | The most famous is [[David Hume]]'s identification of the "is-ought problem". Philosophers routinely start with a statement of what "is", but then somehow illogically leap to what "ought". | + | The most famous is [[David Hume]]'s identification of the "is-ought problem". Philosophers routinely start with a statement of what "is", but then somehow illogically leap to what "ought". For a large list of 40 problematic examples, see "[http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html What is Wrong with Our Thoughts? A Neo-Positivist Credo]". |
=== Assumptions that do not match reality. === | === Assumptions that do not match reality. === | ||
| Line 23: | Line 24: | ||
=== Calvinball === | === Calvinball === | ||
| − | Moral philosophy is Calvinball. Rules are made up as you go. Assumptions are added as needed to get the desired results. Every conclusion can be reversed by the addition of a sufficiently potent assumption. The fancy name for this is defeasible argument. The result is that moral philosophy is a post-hoc intellectual excuse for previously chosen positions. It can also serve as a quick introduction of where selected assumptions can lead, with the caveat that with minor tweaks the entirely opposite results can hold. | + | Moral philosophy is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes#Calvinball Calvinball]. Rules are made up as you go. Assumptions are added as needed to get the desired results. Every conclusion can be reversed by the addition of a sufficiently potent assumption. The fancy name for this is defeasible argument. The result is that moral philosophy is a post-hoc intellectual excuse for previously chosen positions. It can also serve as a quick introduction of where selected assumptions can lead, with the caveat that with minor tweaks the entirely opposite results can hold. |
=== Reifications === | === Reifications === | ||
| Line 127: | Line 128: | ||
<!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them. Use these explicit workarounds. --> | <!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them. Use these explicit workarounds. --> | ||
<!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}} --> | <!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}} --> | ||
| − | {{List|title= | + | {{List|title=Fallacies Of Philosophy|links=true}} |
| − | {{Quotations|title= | + | {{Quotations|title=Fallacies Of Philosophy|quotes=true}} |
