Wondering whether anyone here has any provocative or contrarian philosophical positions (in any area of philosophy) that they consider nonetheless worth defending? (And if possible, say why you think they are worth defending?)

Examples in the literature would be David Benatar’s defense of antinatalism, Jason Brennan’s argument against the civic duty to vote, Marcuse’s argument for ‘repressive tolerance’, etc.

Part of the reason I ask if because that’s the sort of philosophy I enjoy reading, and was hoping to get into some of that in the summer!

I know of agnosticism which is "we don't know whether or not there is life on other planets, it is possible!" or "we don't know whether or not there is a god, soul, ghost, spirit, or afterlife, it is possible!".

Agnostics and theists alike claim "only agnosticism is reasonable", and ignore gnosticism in the form of "extraterrestrial life does not exist" and "the "supernatural" (e.g. a "god", "soul", "ghost", "spirit" and "afterlife") does not exist".

They also claim gnostcism in the form of "extraterrestrial life does not exist" and "the "supernatural" (e.g. a "god", "soul", "ghost", "spirit" and "afterlife") does not exist" is as bad as gnosticism in the form of "extraterrestrial life exists" and "the "supernatural" (e.g. a "god", "soul", "ghost", "spirit" and "afterlife") exists", because both are apparently untestable and have the burden of proof to provide evidence.

Are there any arguments against agnosticism, and in defense of gnosticism though?

Are there any philosophical positions in which things such as "extraterrestrial life", and the "supernatural" (e.g. a "god", "soul", "ghost", "spirit" and "afterlife") are presumed not to exist until there is evidence they do exist?

Would it be logical to be a realist, rather than an anti-realist, and argue "the universe and everything in it exist independent of the mind until there is evidence they are dependent", while simultaneously that "extraterrestrial life, and the "supernatural" (e.g. a "god", "soul", "ghost", "spirit" and "afterlife") do not exist until there is evidence they do exist"?

If the position is "something does not exist until there is evidence it exists", wouldn't it be contradictory to be gnostic about the non-existence of "extraterrestrial life", and the "supernatural" (e.g. a "god", "soul", "ghost", "spirit" and "afterlife"), while being gnostic about the existence of the universe and the things in it?

And why is evidence important in the first place when it's limited by subjectivity and can never be objective?

Humans can only find things out subjectively, with their senses, which means the world humans observe is limited by their subjectivity. Observation is done by the eyes, which makes it subjective, not objective. Every evidence humans have of their own existence, or the existence of the earth and the universe around them is limited by subjectivity, and can not be objective unfortunately. Why doesn't it follow that one should not believe there is such a thing as a human,

One could respond to my question in itself, but here is the picture I have in mind: philosophical positions hang together in a web of belief, whose nodes are the positions and whose edges (or perhaps "edges" shaped like neural connections, since inferences often have multiple premises) are inferences or arguments or reasons. Each node has a degree of plausibility or probability and each edge has a degree of strength.

Philosophical problems are tensions or incoherences or contradictions within the web. The aim of philosophy, then, would be a reflective equilibrium of the web of belief, or a reassignment of plausibilities assigned to the various positions such that these incoherences are resolved and explanatory coherence is maximised. Arguably, this explicates the aim of philosophy according to Sellars ("to understand how things...hang together"), since explanations are accounts that provide understanding. Like science, the Duhem-Quine thesis holds for philosophy too: it's impossible to test philosophical theories in isolation, but only as a corporate body with auxiliary assumptions.

The visual animation I have in mind of the reflective equilibrium is something like a 3Blue1Brown video on neural network learning algorithms but instead of adjusting the strength of connections (presumably we can't do so here since the strength of an inference is fixed) we adjust strength of node (i.e. plausibility of a position). And instead of being linear, it is holistic like Quine's web of belief. And instead of optimising towards matching some supervised learning data, we optimise towards explanatory coherence or perhaps towards the epistemic standards that the web of belief legislates upon itself (I am evoking themes from pragmatism or naturalism or Kuhn or Hegel or Quine or Sellars or Kant or self-correcting, self-improving AI; immanence, not transcendence).

I can understand the idea of the benevolent dictatorship. However, history has shown the nonexistence of benevolent absolute rule. Mainly in the character of the British empire who claimed themselves to be a benevolent patriarchal presence in the countries they rules; yet they over saw the pioneering of concentration camps and (depending on your point of view) encouraged famine in Ireland and India. While I don’t believe the adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely” I do believe corrupted people seek absolute power.

In addition to this, there are all the normal critiques of monarchy that apply from the Bourbons to the Romanovs and even to contemporary royal families like the Windsors. The main one from a socialist perspective being they are incredibly rich and use their money and their status to influence policy in order to keep as much wealth and power as possible.

Finally, if you think the Bolsheviks and the Romanovs could have united you must be completely delusional.

There are some active philosophical disputes that I enjoy following, but I have never seen a clear statement of what the typical position of the Marxist school on them is (or if there's no typical position then what the competing positions among Marxists are and where I can follow the internal debate). Here they are:

1. Metaethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
2. Ethics: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, care ethics or pluralism?
3. Determinism / free will: yes/yes or yes/no (I believe I can exclude no/X)?
4. Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no (this one I don't really care that much about)?
5. Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?
6. Consciousness: reductionism, illusionism or panpsychism?
7. Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?
8. Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?
9. Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?

If anyone is aware on the positions on any of those issues then I would love to hear a general answer and especially to get some pointers about where to find the detailed answer (preferably secondary sources or at least something more helpful than either "read this short vague quote" or "read the entire Das Kapital").

> Ethical Intuitionism was one of the dominant forces in British moral philosophy from the early 18th century till the 1930s. It fell into disrepute in the 1940s, but towards the end of the twentieth century Ethical Intuitionism began to re-emerge as a respectable moral theory.

> All classical intuitionists maintain that basic moral propositions are self-evident,[1] and that moral properties are non-natural properties.

> One of the most distinctive features of Ethical Intuitionism is its epistemology. All of the classic intuitionists maintained that basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument. Price distinguishes intuition from two other grounds of knowledge—namely, immediate consciousness or feeling on the one hand, and argumentation, on the other. Argumentation, or deduction, is knowledge that is ultimately derived from what is immediately apprehended, either by sensation or by the understanding. Immediate consciousness, or feeling, is the mind’s awareness of its own existence and mental states (Price, 1758/1969, 159). It shares immediacy with intuition, but unlike intuition does not have as its object a self-evident proposition. Such immediate self-consciousness is immediate apprehension by sensation. Intuition is immediate apprehension by the understanding. It is the way that we apprehend self-evident truths, general and abstract ideas, “and anything else we may discover, without making any use of any process of reasoning” (1758/1969, 159).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism-ethics/

I’ve seen a lot of straw-men of antinatalist arguments so I just wanted to see what you guys actually think

These are very "low level" ideas, and as such, I am having a difficult time naming them. The reason I want to name them is to become aware of my own assumptions and investigate possible alternatives. Note that I'm not really taking positions on these issues in this post, just looking for names/labels to do further research.

Also feel free to recommend any content you think I'd like, even if not directly related.

Ok, here we go. What are the relevant keywords/names for these questions:

• The idea that all ideas presuppose and/or implicate other ideas. A concept which nicely illustrates the issue I am thinking of, is "figure/ground". As far as I can tell, every idea must rest upon other ideas. This is such an entrenched quality of thinking that I can't really fathom an alternative. Do any philosophers seriously dispute this? Does this idea even have a name?

• Closely related, the position that scientific inquiry presupposes a theoretical/philosophical lens. I know that some positions called "naturalism" deny this and claim that science and philosophy are continuous. I also know that this general area of study is "philosophy of science." But I'm not sure what the specific position itself is called.

• Also closely related, the position that the theoretical lens presupposed by scientific inquiry, in turn presupposes subjectively chosen values.

• The position(s) that human relation to reality is primarily mediated through concepts (a map imposed on the territory), and further, that the purpose of philosophy is to investigate and modify those concepts/map to make them 'better', or 'more useful', or whatever criterion. I believe the second part of this is a "metaphilosophical" issue, but again I'm sure what the particular position is called. Also, I'm unsure whether the first part of this is more properly in the domain of psychology rather than philosophy (?).

• Bertrand Russell has a quote that goes like "philosophy cannot be so defined. Any definition is controversial and already embodies a philosophic attitude. The only way to find out what philosophy is, is to do philosophy". I guess this definition of philosophy is, itself, a metaphilosophical statement. Does his view on philosophy have a specific name?

• The position that there is - in principle - a single fundamentally "correct" and universal worldview to be discovered, even if we have not discovered it already. And further, that it is in principle possible to establish a method/criteria which wil

The Traditionalist Campaign

You are heroes from the great, ancient and mighty lands of Vor. You are descended from the gods themselves and the forces of all that is good and all that is lawful. These lands are under peril for the forces of the Krell led by the evil Wizard Maximus have invaded the borderlands and are ransacking, raping and pillaging your good people and their farmsteads.

Maximus resides in the great tower of babel where he plans to bathe the land in darkness. You must slay the evil wizard and save your eternal kingdom.

You begin in the fortress of hope on the edges of the empire.

The Modernist Campaign

You are members of the resistance fighting against the evil empire of Vor. These lands have been ruled by a cabal of elites masquerading as heroes who in reality subjugate those beneath them brutally. They have extended their rule out to the mountains where the Krell believed they could find some refuge and have sent their death squads in to slay them along with the leader of the resistance, Maximus a defector from the empire who took up arms in the resistance.

You must beat them back from our lands, enter their fortress of hope, destroy them and lead a great revolution to liberate their people.

The Post Modernist Campaign

You are a humanitarian aid worker from the island of Albion supporting refugees in the midst of the war fought between the Empire of Vor and the Krell. You reside within a refugee camp supporting the Krell who have been displaced from their mountain lands by the expansionism of the Vor.

Last night the camp was raided, not by the empire but by a militia funded by the Wizard Maximus who rounded up and executed members of the Krell within the camp who belonged to the Utsi clan who had historically opposed the rule of Maximus. The refugee camps, aid and food acted as bait and the weapons the militia had were procured from the foreign aid that was offered to the Krell by your aid organisation.

What do you do?

The Post Post Modernist Campaign

You are a cyborg living in the second half of the 200th millennium. You spend your time running simulations of fantastical scenarios for your own amusement. One day you decide to press the random simulation button and find yourself living in the 21st century amidst a global pandemic with no knowledge that your entire existence is a simulation.

What do you do?

I've been taking a computer science course which has really changed my mind philosophically but left me obsessed with specifically language. In my findings I stumbled across the idea of language games and found it made sense to me but after further thinking it seems that would kind of nullify, or at the very least severely hamstrings) the idea of universal understanding on a level desired for philosophy.

The thing is I know there's a counterpoint to this view, but I'm currently struggling to see it. It made me curious how commonplace the idea of language games are in the philosophical community and what the counterpoints are to people who disagree.

There is no BS third option.

Question paraphrased for people who want to comment but haven't played the game: There are two families who love you equally. You are blood related to one, and have been living for twenty-odd years with the other. You must choose which has your loyalty. They are mutually exclusive.

I find this to be an easy answer, as I find value in the people who help me. I really respected Xander and Leo, despite the poor writing.

I also have little respect for my IRL family outside of my mother, her mother, my two grandfathers, and two great grandparents now deceased.

There is no BS third option.

View Poll

https://youtu.be/0hZqOdsRoKU

If you were in a position (NOT knowing all the events that took place after it, including the extent of the Dominion War) to decide how this scene would end, which argument, not person, would you side with? Would you support Garak in preemptively stopping the Founders or would you support Worf in seeking diplomacy? And why?

All you know at this point is what has happened in the show up to Season 4, episode 25, "Broken Links"

Edit: Posted the wrong clip. Fixed it. Sorry.

I'm new to philosophy so please forgive me if I sound ignorant. A trouble I have with philosophy is that it's not based on tests, evidence, or an axiom/theorem system, and as such I feel that philosophical arguments can be fashioned to support any position. Would you agree or disagree? If you agree that philosophical arguments can support any position, how can philosophy be reliable in giving us knowledge?

I'm trying to summarize Bayesian-Yudkowskian Rationalism's major philosophical positions. Does the following sound about right?

Bayesian-Yudkowskian Rationalism

Related Schools: Quinean Naturalism, Logical Positivism, Analytic Pragmatism

• Logic: Mathematical Logic
• Language: Analytic Descriptivism, Correspondence Theory of Truth
• Epistemology: Empiricism (Computational Epistemology, Bayesian Epistemology)
• Metaphysics: Naturalistic Reductionism (Scientific Naturalism)
• Metaethics: Moral Functionalism (Cognitivism, Moral Non-Realism)
• Ethics: Utilitarianism
• Aesthetics: Neuroaesthetics
• Politics: Pluralistic Liberal Democracy, Libertarianism

Other Major Positions:

• Transhumanism
• Effective Altruism
• Fun Theory
• X-Risk Research
• Friendly AI Research

I've gone full circle, started not caring about theory and political science at all, went and explored philosophy and ideology for quite a while because I felt like I needed to ground my policy views and pragmatic positions in an ideological foundation, I read economics papers from extremist ideologies and attempted to read theory, but eventually, I realized that the theory I was reading literally had zero impact on the pragmatic positions I already held. Well ideology wise if I had to align myself with one and dig deeper, it would be egoism, which kind of makes ideology a moot point because egoism pretty rejects organizing around a political ideology in favor of individual autonomy and action, so by digging into ideology I basically found that I align most with an ideology that rejects the entire concept of ideology. Not a great explanation on my part, but that's the gist of it. Also, a specific example is like moralism; I already didn't really believe in moral judgment, philosophy just let me see that my belief in determinism kind of justifies a lot of policy positions like advocating for a non-punitive legal system, which I already believed in prior to reading on determinism. Thoughts?

Below is a list of the deltas awarded in this post.

Please note that a change of view is not necessarily a reversal, and that OP awarding a delta doesn't mean the conversation has ended.

For a full explanation of the delta system, see here.

Deltas from OP /u/crescentCommoner

• 1 delta from OP to /u/Quinneaux for ">Can't every philosophical position/stance be summated to something similar though? Every philoso..."

#Deltas from Other Users

None yet.

What are the main 'philosophical positions' of Buddhism if any? Let me ask some basic questions.

1. Is there objective knowledge? Certain knowledge?
2. Is there such a thing as matter or mind? Are there any substances that make up reality?
3. Is there free will?
4. Is the universe deterministic?
5. Do mathematical objects exist? Does infinity exist?

Also interested in book recommendations on the matter.

I'm currently doing my M.A. in Philosophy at an English University however I have taken quite a few years out and my B.A. was in Sociology. Hence I am struggling with a kind of imposter syndrome as I'm completely unschooled in analytic philosophy, also with the idea that I need to be arguing that my ideas and/or arguments are true or universal.

I've always aligned myself with the Nietzschean idea, picked up by Foucault, that things that we see as universal are historically contingent (i.e. the very concept of 'good' is analysed in this manner in the Genealogy of Morals). In my reading thus far, which has been fairly extensive, I haven't found much in the traditional discipline of philosophy that deals with socially constructed knowledge...maybe later Wittgenstein but this seems absract...perhaps I am looking in the wrong places... Anyway if you guys could help out I'd really appreciate it.

Cheers.