Is there any philosophical question that you don't know the answer to?

[Fifty]

I've noticed this phenomena among the people who (unfortunately) participate in most philosophy-oriented threads. They are utterly convinced that they know the answer (or at least can explain why no answer exists) to absolutely every problem in philosophy (you know, those questions that many of the smartest people ever have pained over for thousands of years). I'm curious as to whether that bizarre hubris is a widespread phenomenon, or if it just applies locally to the type of people who participate in philosophy-oriented threads.

So:

Is there any philosophical question that you don't know the answer to?

 

[Godwynn]

Is there any philosophical question that you don't know the answer to?

I usually only deal with hard facts, but I see this thread has some potential.

Could you start out with some examples? Preferably the ones that most people think they know, but obviously do not.

Thanks!

 

[Fifty]

Could you start out with some examples? Preferably the ones that most people think they know, but obviously do not.

Well, I won't mention specific examples for fear of this thread turning user-specific, but I'm sure you've seen the phenomenon: some philosophical thread gets posted, and everybody and their uncle knows the answer, usually grounded in some vague and undeveloped scientistic worldview and an equally vague allegiance to "logic". It can be about any basic philosophical question.

You can usually tell the difference between someone who is merely offering their take or opinion, and someone who believes they have found a definitive answer, by the tone of the post.

 

[Dubai Vol]

It's an artifact of the average age of posters here: young=know-it-all.

 

[Elrohir]

I voted for the wrong option. Darn double negative. I really shouldn't vote in polls on 3 hours of sleep....

Sure, there are plenty of questions I'm genuinely unsure about. And even a lot of the questions I think I know the answer to I'm not 100% on.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

For me, I'm sure there are a lot. But most of those questions are the ones I have little interest in. I only care about social philosophy (people-relations) and theoretical jurisprudence on the global and country level.

The big question I don't know the answer to is whether consciousness 'exists' or not. Interesting, I'm sure, but I don't care.

 

[Fifty]

Just for clarification, assume that you don't need 100% sure-ness to qualify as "knowing" something. Just apply the same standards you routinely apply when you say things like "I know the capital of Brazil."

 

[North King]

Well, of course! Where did we come from? -- I can't answer that. Why are we here? -- I can make a good guess, but it's hardly the only answer. Heck, my answer for that is more or less based on each person finding their own answer. I try to maintain an open mind.

 

[Brighteye]

If I didn't think my opinion was the right answer, it wouldn't be my opinion. And phenomenon is the singular, by the way.
I discuss my opinion until someone shows me why it's wrong. The only problem is that linking to a description of current opinion doesn't disprove any opinion at all, be it mine or anyone else's.
If you don't want to discuss philosophical opinions, don't post philosophical discussions in a discussion forum! If you want to limit yourself only to people who have already accepted the popular canon, you won't get anything from it, because you'll know the arguments already, having studied them. If you engage in discussing 'less enlightened' opinions, you might find yourself eventually discussing ideas with people who do accept the popular canon, because you'll have enlightened them. Alternatively, you might find that the popular canon lacks a certain something. Either way, complaining that people have their own ideas is silly. Do you really expect people not to have thought about a subject except to have the same ideas as you?

 

[Perfection]

I don't know!

 

[amadeus]

No, but none of my answers would be considered philosophically valid.

 

[LightFang]

I don't know a lot of answers to a lot of things. That's why learning is awesome.

 

[kuukkeli]

I've noticed another type of people as well: those who are utterly convinced that the said "smartest people ever" know the answers to all (or at least to all that can be answered) philosophical questions and anyone who dares to disagree with these wise men (or more precisely, with the ones whose books a poster has happened to read) is an unfortunate, unqualified and unwelcome to discuss these matters and all his answers can be jested, mocked or ignored.

Is there any philosophical question that you don't know the answer to?

I was about the say yes but after you loosened the standard of knowing I'm not exactly sure. I still suppose the answer is yes but I'll refrain from voting until I've given this some more thought.

 

[Sims2789]

I don't know how to prove inherent rights.

 

[pau17]

Just for clarification, assume that you don't need 100% sure-ness to qualify as "knowing" something. Just apply the same standards you routinely apply when you say things like "I know the capital of Brazil."

Is it possible to know the answer to philosophical questions in the same way that you know the capital of Brazil? It seems like "knowing the capital of Brazil" is a matching game, recalling a piece of information that was given to you in a certain pre-defined way (letters "b-r-a-s-i-l-i-a", name pronounced "brah-SEE-lee-uh", place on a map, picture, etc.) such that the whole thing is an identity, a closed circuit that is true because of the way it is defined. You had to learn, arbitrarily, that certain criteria meant that Brasilia was the capital of Brazil. But does this apply to "knowing" philosophical truths, and do truths even exist for philosophy in the same way? Or could you point to some examples of things that people have figured out in philosophy to the same degree of "knowing" what the capital of Brazil is? I wonder if either some different standard of "know" is going to have to be applied, or if there simply won't be any philosophical question that people "know" if you use a strict definition.

Addition: I think people can "know" the answer to a philosophical question but in a certain sense. Eventually some base principles will have to be defined and used. Something I've noticed is that practically anyone with a reasonable amount of intellect and reading comprehension can understand and engage a philosophical argument if you explain the terms and lingo to them and run it by them at most a few times. I find that people get lost a lot quicker once you start throwing advanced physics equations or biology at them. (And I'm not even a science person, so no self-promotion here.) Chemistry majors can often discuss their philosophy-major friend's term paper with them, but not vice versa. I think this is because a different standard of "knowing" is inherent to philosophy and philosophers have to be careful about addressing those whom they see as "civilians" because the philosophers ultimately don't know much more themselves. This is not to debase the discipline, but I do think that "knowing" something in philosophy is not as closed-off as the OP makes it seem. People don't need a PhD to contest a philosophical argument and at least explain why the point is moot or find a way to filibuster it. Or at least I welcome anyone to call me out on this and show me how I'm wrong.

 

[skadistic]

Since philosophy is subjective nearly any answer is as valid an another?

 

[warpus]

Fifty, you don't philosophize about questions with known answers!

That's what philosophy is all about.. the discussion of questions with answers that are not yet certain.

Do I know what the nature of reality is, or whether God exists? Of course not.. Nobody does! That's why we get together and philosophize about these things, to attempt to gain a greater understanding of what we're discussing by hearing other points of view.. and arguing our own.

 

[C~G]

Yes, of course.

But I think the problem for me with quite plenty of philosophical questions pondered for thousands of years are that they most probably tell about the nature and technicalities of human brain functioning rather than exactly about the facts of specific metaphysical aspects of nature even though they both revolve around each other creating this perfect mystery from which philosophy is ultimately born.

In sense, the original question of philosophy is what is the meaning and need of philosophy for a man.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I've noticed this phenomena among the people who (unfortunately) participate in most philosophy-oriented threads. They are utterly convinced that they know the answer (or at least can explain why no answer exists) to absolutely every problem in philosophy (you know, those questions that many of the smartest people ever have pained over for thousands of years). I'm curious as to whether that bizarre hubris is a widespread phenomenon, or if it just applies locally to the type of people who participate in philosophy-oriented threads.

So:

Is there any philosophical question that you don't know the answer to?

How could I resist? I am an arrogant, non philosopher who frequently joins philosophical threads with all the answers. This is perfect.

First my bias: whatever its value to an individual, I put the study of philosophy below economics in its usefulness to society.

Why have "the smartest people ever" never solved any of the so important philosophical questions they have tried to answer for the last 4000 years? It is quite simple, they have been using the wrong method. Philosophy tries to find answers to questions about existence and knowledge and ethics etc. using ratiional methods that cannot be address through hard science.

For 4,000 years we have had very smart men trying over and over again to use reason to answer the same basic questions and they have all failed to prove anything substantial. Hmmm doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. Sounds like insanity to me. I would have thought that really smart people would have said "maybe we are on the wrong track" or "we are using the wrong tools to answer these questions". But if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

4000 years of failure by philosophers does not mean that the answers are difficult. All it means is that their approach is a poor choice. The philosophical road does not provide answers. The questions they ask cannot be answered by logic. They have trapped themselves in a no-man's-land between real science and the irrational.

So back to Fifty's question.

Are you looking for people who know the answers to "problems in Philosophy" or answers to the questions posed by philosophers that they have been unable to answer? They are not the same questions.

I haven't any answers to the problems faced by those who indulge in philosophical discussion, but I do know (ie firmly believe) the answers to most of questions that philosophers have not been able to answer for the last 4000 years. And it is not because I am particularly smart. It is just that I have not bound myself to to a methodology that is useless in findiing the answers they are looking for.

 

[warpus]

I haven't any answers to the problems faced by those who indulge in philosophical discussion, but I do know (ie firmly believe) the answers to most of questions that philosophers have not been able to answer for the last 4000 years. And it is not because I am particularly smart. It is just that I have not bound myself to to a methodology that is useless in findiing the answers they are looking for.

(bolding mine)

So.. You've figured out all of life's mysteries, that nobody else has been able to figure out, ever.. and.. you don't have the answers.

Wait, what???