SoRoUsH

The Legacy of Islamic Philosophy

Rate this topic

32 posts in this topic

On 5/19/2017 at 5:31 PM, .InshAllah. said:

This is completely false.  You need to look into the literature on rationality and justification.  In fact, I dont think any philosopher has ever argued for P.  At the very least, the majority of contemporary philosophers would reject P

I did my Master's thesis in epistemology, with a focus on naturalized justifications. :) 

So, I can say with confidence, most philosophers, if not all, agree with the claim "Every rational claim requires an argument, unless it is obvious to all or acceptable to all." Some may argue that there aren't any self-evident propositions, which in turn means the removal of the "unless" part of the claim. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, SoRoUsH said:

I did my Master's thesis in epistemology, with a focus on naturalized justifications. :) 

So, I can say with confidence, most philosophers, if not all, agree with the claim "Every rational claim requires an argument, unless it is obvious to all or acceptable to all." Some may argue that there aren't any self-evident propositions, which in turn means the removal of the "unless" part of the claim. 

 

I also have a degree in Philosophy (not that it matters) and there is no question that you've got this wrong.  Earlier in the thread I mentioned one of the leading internalist theories of justification (roughly: x is justified in believing p if it seems to x that p is true).  But you dont have to be an internalist to reject the above claim.  Plantinga is an externalist for example.  Having said that, I didnt just appeal to authority but gave arguments why the claim cant be true.

There are a lot of famous theories of justification.  Can you quote one that endorses the above claim?  

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

39 minutes ago, .InshAllah. said:

I also have a degree in Philosophy (not that it matters) and there is no question that you've got this wrong.  Earlier in the thread I mentioned one of the leading internalist theories of justification (roughly: x is justified in believing p if it seems to x that p is true).  But you dont have to be an internalist to reject the above claim.  Plantinga is an externalist for example.  Having said that, I didnt just appeal to authority but gave arguments why the claim cant be true.

There are a lot of famous theories of justification.  Can you quote one that endorses the above claim?  

I don't think you have the correct understanding of what arguments are. 

When you say "theories of justification," what you really mean is "arguments for theories of justification." For each theory to be evaluated it must present an accompanying argument. Why is theory X better than theory Y? Because the argument for X is stronger than the argument for Y. 

Every rational belief must be accompanied by a convincing argument. 

There are arguments and counter-arguments, for both internalists' and externalists' takes on justifications. 

Edited by SoRoUsH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

There are arguments and counter-arguments, for both internalists' and externalists' takes on justifications. 

This is true, but to conclude from this that every rational belief requires an argument is invalid.  Just because a subset of beliefs require an argument, it doesnt mean that all beliefs require an argument.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, .InshAllah. said:

This is true, but to conclude from this that every rational belief requires an argument is invalid.  Just because a subset of beliefs require an argument, it doesnt mean that all beliefs require an argument.  

 

Every rational (non-faith based) belief requires an argument. 

Each theory supports a belief. For example, Internalism argues for "X is justified in believing P, if it seems to X that P is true." This statement, this belief, this proposition is the conclusion of an argument. Its critics would examine the premises of the argument, which led to this conclusion, to either reject it or weaken it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright brother! 

I believe, I've said all I needed to say about this topic. We can always agree to disagree. :)

One last thing: 

Have you read the article yet? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2017 at 9:46 PM, SoRoUsH said:

Alright brother! 

I believe, I've said all I needed to say about this topic. We can always agree to disagree. :)

One last thing: 

Have you read the article yet? :)

 

I'll let you have the last word :)

No not yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.