Transcript files.pratelefilosofie.cz

What if we cannot philosophize?
Jakub Moravčík
Havířov, quodlibet seminary 22.11.2014
Přátelé filosofie (Friends of philosophy)/ Filosofický klub 2008 (Philosophical club 2008)
Gist of the problem
Primary experience:

Human seems to be a free being which permanently makes
choices

It seems that free action has moral dimension. There are
criterias of action insofar it´s action – it can be good or bad

Also theoretical actions (deducement, thinking, doubting, asking
etc.), which we perform during philosophizing, are notnecessary choices, acts – also philosophizing is life, also
cognition is action

During philosophizing I permanently decide somehow and thus I
am not excluded from moral dimension of life. By choosing
anything I necesarilly presuppose the good of the chosen – but
only presuppose!
Resulting questions (s.c. Problem of ethical legitimation of philosophy):
- aren´t we dogmatic when we unproblematically philosophize?
- aren´t we immoral when we philosophize? Don´t we do evil?
Inspiration and motivation
Jiří Fuchs: philosophy MUST start with noetics (J.M.: really?)
Søren Kierkegaard: we think backwards, but live forward
Ethics generally: concrete moral imperatives (concerning also theoretical
actions!), moral taboo
Determinist´s objection
Determinist: the problem presupposes free will. But what if we are
completely determined? That´s what we have to identify first!
Reply:
- no human is naturally born as determinist
- also determinist once decided whether he will deal with the
problem of free will and determinism, he experienced it as deciding
process
- determinist doesn´t know if he can philosophize about determinism
Attempt to solve of the problem
- inspiration took from noetics of Jiří Fuchs
- ideal imaginary oponent called „ethical sceptic“
- methodical rule of ethical sceptic:
„No action can be performed before its ethical legitimation!“
In our case we will apply this rule mostly to the so called
theoretical actions – thinking, debating, thematisation,
doubting, deducing, asking etc.
- ethical sceptic wants to be a philosopher, not a „violent
moralist“
Polemics with the ethical sceptic
- whenever we do any (theoretical) action, ethical sceptic will
always ask how do we know that we could do it and if we
ethically legitimated it
- even if we try to show him some legitimation he will ask how
do we know that we might show it to him because its
showing is also a free action that has to be legitimated. He
might have meant his question for legitimation as catch
question in order to test us. How to escape from it?
- a solution: have the ethical sceptic legitimated his own
objecting? If he did not is not he alone dogmatic ? He wants
us to do something which he alone cannot do. Ethical sceptic
concedes it because he wants to be a philosopher.
What we did (not) found out?





If philosophy has some obligating methodical starting point, it
has to start with the question of goodness, not with the
question of truth.
Although ethical sceptic did not win we still do not know what
we can philosophize about and what not. What now?
Optimistic approach: let´s philosophize about anything.
Against: moral taboo-makers (E. Anscombe, E. Feser, ...)
Problem of moral taboo-makers: what has to be a taboo and
what not? Who will decide it? How do we know that the
tabooizing will not board the runaway train?
Taboo-makers: moral intuitions of western civilization.
Against: postmodernists – historical and social conditions.
What if the whole solution is wrong?
Objection: I have all the time philosophized the topic whether
we can philosophize while not knowing that I really can
philosophize about it!
Reply (partial): philosophizing is not and cannot by completely
without presuppositions. And it sometimes cannot start
without breaking a taboo.
Result:
Addendum: a „principle of reasoning“ problem

Question: is reasoning act of reason or will?
If reason, then the proof of free will from inconsistency of determinist
position is invalid, Scotus is right: freedom is independent of reason


If will then Descartes is true and mistake = sin

Uncomfortable ramifications for free will backers (scotists excluded)

„Purely theoretical action“ is the same phrase as „rounded square“
Literature
Untortunately only blogs
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/06/can-philosophy-be-polemical.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/walters-on-tls.html
http://kontrafikce.blogspot.com/2014/01/moralni-tabu-meze-diskuze.html
http://kontrafikce.blogspot.com/2014/05/zakazuju-zakazujes-zakazujeme.html
http://desirabilia.blogspot.com/2013/07/problem-eticke-legitimace-filosofie-15.html
http://desirabilia.blogspot.com/2013/08/opravdu-teoreticka-suspenze-eticna.html