[
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Poor use of logic (or no use at all), false analogies, strawman arguments, emotional arguments, etc. are all apart of bad philosophy.
I continue fail to see any worth in it.
|
I think that perhaps these are more bad techniques or skills, rather than the philosophy itself. Although I am less sure that the position that I took as a possibility that philosophy can't be bad is perhaps wrong. Perhaps bad techniques can leave a philosophy open to easy criticism, although I don’t think I would throw away the whole worth of the piece on one ill thought out concept. However should the piece contain only arguments from bad technique then this may be a case of bad philosophy. Although I am not sure that a piece that hasn’t the thought there in the first place really contains philosophy, but this is something that I will have to think on further.
The worth of learning such things can be that once you are aware of them you can avoid them, as well as recognise them in other work. Although the worth may simply be to learn by mistakes, I don't think that I have ever read any philosophy that was holy bad. I usually find that while it is always open to criticism that it still has some worth even if that worth is just to start a debate.
I was amused to see you refer to the strawman arguments, I remember when I used them when I first began philosophy.
Quote:
|
I would simply argue that answering the question logically implies a question to answer.
|
But I am not sure that questioning something in philosophy always requires an answer to make it valid. Philosophy can question things without supplying an answer, indeed I think that creating the question in the first place seems to be a point of philosophy.
Quote:
|
And thank you for the complement.
|
Lol, don't mention it.