Philosophy
I want to make one thing clear. This is not a rant against taking philosophy courses.
I enjoy philosophy; it is a very interesting subject and I believe that all students
should take at least one course. I also think its worth noting I am nothing more
than a student, my knowledge is incomplete and if any one feels like enlightening
me please do so.
This is about the faults I have found in philosophy. Like any human made system
thee are flaws. A system is only as good as its creator. I find philosophy both
annoying and exciting for one reason, the farther you go the bigger it gets.
I believe (Like my text book) that philosophy is the questioning of a person’s
beliefs. I however feel that from my small glimpse of philosophers it doesn’t
go far enough. My philosophy professor doesn’t question one belief. Socrates
and Plato also don’t question this one belief.
I felt this was one of the first beliefs that should be questioned. If you want
to build a house you don’t worry about the roof until you are sure of the
foundation.
What is this belief I think is overlooked? The belief in one truth, philosophers
use the rather narrow guide of true/false. A statement can be either but not both.
Another narrow belief that follows the same guide lines is right/wrong.
I have thought of a few examples to bolster my claim this belief needs examination.
When two crimes are committed (lets use the examples of stealing, and murder)
do they receive the same punishment? Of course not one is a much more minor infraction
than the other. Applying the right/wrong idea to this example both criminals should
get the same punishment.
If you want to look at right and wrong as a spectrum then you encounter several
problems.
One Problem is neutrality. In a spectrum there is a neutral point. The right/wrong
ideal doesn’t leave room for anything else.
The spectrum of right and wrong also must be infinite in size. If you can name
an act of pure evil a worse one can be named. The same thing is true with an act
of good. Since that means there is no definitive good and evil it becomes hard
to classify an action. The neutral point (which isn’t created by the philosophers
I’ve read.) The neutral point changes with each persons beliefs. The line
between good and bad is set in different place for each person.
I believe I’ve illuminated my problem with the statement things are either
right or wrong. I could show more examples but it would just get repetitive.
The true/false mentality is a bit harder to find fault in. It is harder to find
fault in because the idea of truth and falsehood is a bit abstract. Good and evil
are used to judge actions. True and false are used to judge thoughts and statements.
I think the Socratic Method of inquiry is a flawed one. An ideal can be disproved
by one person and then proven by another. That means truth is found by the charisma
of the person who makes the statement.
If you can prove something is true then opposite statements are obviously false.
Something can’t be both dark/light, hot/cold, light/heavy, etc.
I disagree; a grain of sand is light to us and heavy to a flea. A mountain is
large, but not when compared to the solar system. A light bulb isn’t bright
when compared to the flash from an A-bomb.
The same thing that occurs with the right wrong spectrum will also happen with
any of the variations I spoke of.
