You cant solve philosophy without solving epistemology, and you can’t solve philosophy without solving epistemology. And you can’t solve epistemology because of the Problem of the Criterion, which is pretty is pretty much the same as the Münchhausen Trilemma.
“Moreover, its [philosophy’s] central tool is intuition, and this displays a near-total ignorance of how brains work. As Michael Vassar observes, philosophers are “spectacularly bad” at understanding that their intuitions are generated by cognitive algorithms.”—Rob Bensinger, Philosophy, a diseased discipline.
What’s the problem?
It’s not that philosophers weirdly and unreasonably prefer intuition to empirical facts and mathematical/logical reasoning, it is that those things either don’t go far enough, or are themselves based on intuition.
“Just use empiricism” doesn’t work, because philosophy is about interpreting empirical data.
“Just use maths/logic” doesn’t work , because those things are based on axioms justified by intuitive appeal.
“Just use reductionism” doesn’t work , because its not clear what lies at the bottom of the stack, or if anything does. Logic, epistemology and ontology have been held to be First Philosophy at different times. Logic, epistemology and ontology also seen to interact. Correct ontology depends on direct epistemology..but what minds are capable of knowing depends on ontology. Logic possibly depends on ontology too, since quantum.mechanics arguable challenges traditional bivalent logic.
Philosophers don’t embrace intuitions because they think they are particularly reliable,but because they have reasoned that they can’t do without them. (At least, the other options allowed by the MuNchausen trilemna, circulatory and regress, are distinctly unattractive )That is the essence of the Inconvenient Ineradicability of Intuition. An unfounded foundation is what philosophers mean by “intuition”...and not a supernatural insight that could not have been produced by a material brain
You cant solve philosophy without solving epistemology, and you can’t solve philosophy without solving epistemology. And you can’t solve epistemology because of the Problem of the Criterion, which is pretty is pretty much the same as the Münchhausen Trilemma.
“Moreover, its [philosophy’s] central tool is intuition, and this displays a near-total ignorance of how brains work. As Michael Vassar observes, philosophers are “spectacularly bad” at understanding that their intuitions are generated by cognitive algorithms.”—Rob Bensinger, Philosophy, a diseased discipline.
What’s the problem?
It’s not that philosophers weirdly and unreasonably prefer intuition to empirical facts and mathematical/logical reasoning, it is that those things either don’t go far enough, or are themselves based on intuition.
“Just use empiricism” doesn’t work, because philosophy is about interpreting empirical data.
“Just use maths/logic” doesn’t work , because those things are based on axioms justified by intuitive appeal.
“Just use reductionism” doesn’t work , because its not clear what lies at the bottom of the stack, or if anything does. Logic, epistemology and ontology have been held to be First Philosophy at different times. Logic, epistemology and ontology also seen to interact. Correct ontology depends on direct epistemology..but what minds are capable of knowing depends on ontology. Logic possibly depends on ontology too, since quantum.mechanics arguable challenges traditional bivalent logic.
Philosophers don’t embrace intuitions because they think they are particularly reliable,but because they have reasoned that they can’t do without them. (At least, the other options allowed by the MuNchausen trilemna, circulatory and regress, are distinctly unattractive )That is the essence of the Inconvenient Ineradicability of Intuition. An unfounded foundation is what philosophers mean by “intuition”...and not a supernatural insight that could not have been produced by a material brain