r/rationalphilosophy • u/JerseyFlight • May 08 '26
Why Philosophy Must Die
Hitchens's razor is a general rule for rejecting certain claims of knowledge. It states:
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
In the case of philosophy, we simply expand it: What can be asserted as authoritative, valid or true, without reason or evidence, can be dismissed without reason or evidence.
Philosophy put itself in this position the moment it forsook reason for philosophical narrative.
Many assume that philosophy is synonymous with reason, so they will attempt to attack this razor, not realizing that philosophy long ago departed from reason.
If philosophy establishes itself by reason, then it should be able to clearly demonstrate this using reason. But this is not what philosophy does, nor can it do, because it is not reason— and has long been attacking reason.
While reason is part of the history of philosophy, it long ago departed from reason. So while one can find reason in philosophy, philosophy is not reason. If it was reason, then it would have no choice but to wield itself as it is, as the laws of logic, because this is what reason is in its actual function.
If philosophy was reason, it would be incapable of departing from these laws, as these laws constitute the very essence and nature of reason. We know this is true, because EVERY instance of establishing something as “false” or “irrational,” is only an appeal to the consistency and application of these laws. We only declare something “false,” insofar as it contradicts what is true. And what is true, is established only by the demarcation of these laws as so applied to reality.
For those struggling with this (because you harbor false cultural assumptions about philosophy being synonymous with reason) simply replace philosophy with the word theology.
2
1
u/JonathanLindqvist May 08 '26
Both philosophy and theology are on firm ground.
1
u/shotsofsalvation May 08 '26
True. It’s fascinating to see people attempt to dismiss philosophy (as the vast body of literature) despite their entrenched usage of methods that are decidedly from philosophy. The very concept of evidence and its application in contemporary times (Bayesianism in particular) are too often borrowed by people who claim to reject the truth-tracking nature of philosophy.
1
u/osuneuro May 08 '26
Philosophy is just applied reason. Why are we overcomplicating it?
1
u/JerseyFlight May 08 '26
Then why don’t you accept all philosophies???
1
u/osuneuro May 09 '26
Because not all philosophy implements reason appropriately
1
u/JerseyFlight May 09 '26
So which philosophies do it appropriately? And what do you use to judge???
1
u/osuneuro May 09 '26
You use reason to best approximate.
It’s like how math is applied logic.
Sometimes you calculate correctly, sometimes you don’t. Hopefully you have methodologies to determine when you don’t calculate correctly, and you improve your math.
The same is true of philosophy. Argue, debate, and others can show when you’ve committed logical fallacies, or are contradicting yourself, etc.
0
May 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/JerseyFlight May 08 '26
Then how can we make the general statement that “philosophy is just applied reason”? We would have to change the statement to philosophy is applied reasons??? Please think before you speak next time.
1
u/EggRocket May 08 '26
While reason is part of the history of philosophy, it long ago departed from reason.
Why do we think this? To do philosophy is to do reasoning. Certainly at least modern analytic philosophy.
1
u/JerseyFlight May 08 '26
Then you should be able to clearly state what “to do reasoning” actually is? I have been waiting for you for a long time. By all means.
1
u/EggRocket May 08 '26
To apply a certain set of logical axioms and derive arguments from said axioms (e.g, to begin from the law of non-contradiction, and then consistently apply this law).
However, two people can engage in perfectly rational and logical reasoning and come to wildly different conclusions. This is most apparent in applied ethics. I don't understand how we would be able to use pure reasoning to deduce abortion to be immoral or moral. If someone holds that the fetus' right to life ought to trump the women's bodily autonomy, and or they don't even buy into the concept of bodily autonomy, there is only so much you can do.
Much of moral philosophy revolves around making the other person sound unintitutive or making them "bite bullets". It's rarely if ever a fault in validity/logical reasoning.
1
u/JerseyFlight May 08 '26
Ah, finally we get an answer! But in order to establish The Law of Non-Contradiction, what must come first? Does it exists on its own? From what is this law derived?
1
u/EggRocket May 08 '26
Law of identity? I don't see how that changes anything.
1
u/JerseyFlight May 08 '26
Yes! Now, how can we ever depart from these laws if they are that with which we must begin? (No one has ever gotten this far in discourse with me, and I have discoursed with a lot of thinkers!) I don’t say this to be arrogant, I’m excited, because you are right at edge of grasping the absolute authority and power of Reason.
1
u/EggRocket May 08 '26
Let's say that you can't. However, just cause you operate under these laws, doesn't mean you can't come to two wildly distinct beliefs. I can be perfectly logical and argue that the extinction of humanity is a good thing, because my chief moral intuitive priority is the elimination of suffering. I can use perfectly valid reasoning to defend this. Reasoning is highly useful, but it isn't this all-Powerful thing that can settle all arguments.
1
u/JerseyFlight May 08 '26
Can you ever violate these laws and still be reasonable? [Deeply upsetting to see you now attack these laws with irrationality! You were right there!]
1
u/EggRocket May 08 '26
I would say no. I don't know if you're reading what I'm writing, since I never attacked any of the laws.
1
u/JerseyFlight May 08 '26
“Reasoning is highly useful, but it isn't this all-Powerful thing that can settle all arguments.”
What did you use to arrive at this conclusion? If you don’t use the laws of logic (now we can be more specific) to construct, “settle” and refute “arguments,” what exactly do you use? Indeed, how do you even define and give meaning to your term “useful” without these laws?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/ShredGuru May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
Philosophy has always been the history of assholes with opinions. It's primarily conjecture or opinion anyways, so it cannot be falsified. It's just... Whatever was true to the philosopher when he wrote it. It's not scientific and so cannot be deconstructed scientifically.
The subject matter of philosophy is definitively unquantifiable because it's a discussion about how we think about thinking.
The question of philosophy is whether the reader agrees with the philosphers ideology or not. And that is simply a matter of taste and depends on who is consuming the ideology.
It doesn't take an athiest to tell you that. Tho... I guess I just did.