You are here

How Good Is A Philosophy?

How good is a person's philosophy? Of all the famous philosophers, which had the best work? And how good is my philosophy?

That is the central thesis of my thought lately. If I were to measure each philosopher's work how would I do it? How can I develop a philosophy which is better than the one I have now and how could I prove that it is?

Some work has already gone into this type of effort, although I am not sure that this particular question has been asked. Science and scientific method have matured and there are well established methods for characterizing questions, setting parameters, executing a test and (to the degree that it is possible) establishing causality. In essence the science of science has been established. Writings on the philosophy of science have qualitatively discussed science and its purpose, how to do it well, etc. But what has not been established is a science of philosophy.

But is that even possible? I suppose that within the framework that anything can be known, it is. What conerns me is the possibility of circularity. I use logic, skepticism and science to establish the validity of my experiences. I use the same to establish the validity of my philosophies, like epistemology, metaphysics, etc. But my subjective view of the world (and my beliefs) and necessarily interferes with the way I think. Let's take a brief look at philosophy from a scientific point of view.

1.) Let's restate the question: How can I establish with complete objectivity the quality of a philosophical system?
2.) To do this we would have to measure it. I think thoroughness is the key here. A perfect system would cover all possible scenarios and would include every topic possible. Maybe that means a system would have to be incredibly detailed. Or maybe that means it would have to be incredibly simple. I don't know.
3.) How does it hold together? I think the key to establishing validity as a system of philosophy would be consistency. A perfect system would be perfectly consistent and be free from error.

So by my reasoning the perfect philosophy would be complete and consistent. Such a system could be applied to all circumstances without ambiguity and without error.

Tags: 

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <table> <tr> <td> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <pre> <dd> <img> <sub> <sup>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.