I really enjoyed reading your eight theses. I loved the balance you struck between being skeptical of controversial claims while still defending the idea of philosophical progress. It got me thinking that the disagreement at the 'frontier' of philosophy might not be a failure at all. It could actually be a sign that our shared background assumptions are so refined now that the only things left to debate are the incredibly difficult edge cases. In that way, the fighting at the top is actually evidence of a solid foundation beneath it. I know this ties into your point about 'invisible agreement,' but I’m curious: Do you think there’s something structural about philosophy that guarantees these disagreements will persist, no matter how careful we are?
“ our shared background assumptions are so refined now that the only things left to debate are the incredibly difficult edge cases.” I hadn’t thought of it that way, but that seems like a fascinating possibility. I think maybe it’s at least close to being an accurate characterization—and one that helpfully shifts our focus from the disagreement to the agreement. Very cool.
I really enjoyed reading your eight theses. I loved the balance you struck between being skeptical of controversial claims while still defending the idea of philosophical progress. It got me thinking that the disagreement at the 'frontier' of philosophy might not be a failure at all. It could actually be a sign that our shared background assumptions are so refined now that the only things left to debate are the incredibly difficult edge cases. In that way, the fighting at the top is actually evidence of a solid foundation beneath it. I know this ties into your point about 'invisible agreement,' but I’m curious: Do you think there’s something structural about philosophy that guarantees these disagreements will persist, no matter how careful we are?
“ our shared background assumptions are so refined now that the only things left to debate are the incredibly difficult edge cases.” I hadn’t thought of it that way, but that seems like a fascinating possibility. I think maybe it’s at least close to being an accurate characterization—and one that helpfully shifts our focus from the disagreement to the agreement. Very cool.
Great post idea. Your book with Huemer is on my reading list and I'm looking forward to it!
That’s very kind of you.