In science we have the scientific method and in math we have proof. Why doesn't philosophy have a method of validating its results?
For a philosophical proposition we can neither provide evidence nor test it, and we can't prove it either. How do I - as a philosopher - know my reasoning is correct?
Math has more to do with philosophy than science
Because our universe is bound by logical principles and facts.
If your argument is sound/valid, then your reasoning must therefore be correct.
R8 this justification as to why utilitarianism is a good moral philosphy to live by.
>Humans like being happy.
>Humans generally even gain pleasure from making other human beings happy.
>Utilitarianism teaches us that we should make the decision that causes the most amount of people to have the most amount to gain the most amount of happiness.
>If you agree with the first two premises then you must therefore admit that utlitarianism is a pretty good moral philosophy to live by.
Unless I massively fucked up?
>Unless I massively fucked up?
You cannot quantify happiness.
Just because a lot of 17th century philosophers were also mathamaticians doesn't mean philosophy and maths relate to each other.
The reason they were involved in both fields was because they were educated people in the enlightenment and it was fashionable to do both.
Give me one reason how trigonomatry has fucking anything to do with morality.
>Give me one reason how trigonomatry has fucking anything to do with morality.
Both deal with sin.
No you can't, but you can categorize it and that usually does the trick.
...
Are you implying philosophy has results
>In science we have the scientific method and in math we have proof.
Both derived from philosophical principles :^P
I was gonna make the exact same thread have a .
But yea, how come we do not test philosophy?
I do think there can be value in non-testable philosophy. But it shouldn't claim the prestige it likes to.
As is, you just have a series of propositions arranged in a column, no logical relating between them. Among other things, you're missing a critical conditional statement to set up the syllogism and a proposition affirming the first clause of the conditional. Something like 'If we wish to make people happier on the whole, then we must accept that utilitarianism is a pretty good moral philosophy' 'We do wish to make people happier on the whole, therefore...' etc.
>results
Anyway, philosophy also utilizes logical proof. Yes, even 'continental' philosophy. Just because you're required to do a bit of work to discover the argument doesn't mean it's not there.
This
dumb toadposter
>If the current president of the United States is Barack Hussein Obama, then the initiator of this thread has regular homosexual intercourse
>The current president of the United States of America is Barack Hussein Obama
>Therefore the initiator of this thread has regular homosexual intercourse
By modus ponens, a perfectly valid argument. What have we learned about the world?
1452167
>mentioning maths
>talking about trig
>doesnt even know about logic tables and muh mathematical logic
Graduate students who study formal logic arguably have a better sense of what makes a sound argument than the average individual.
Also, the Socratic method.
That a valid argument is not necessarily true. Since your initial premise was false then the argument is not true even though it is valid.
>hasn't heard of spinoza
Hurrr
There we gooooooooooooo.
Maybe also that
>If your argument is sound/valid, then your reasoning must therefore be correct.
is a tautology
The fact that Barack Hussein Obama is president, and that OP has regular homosexual intercourse are indisputable facts. But you can't draw necessary connexions between the two.
>If your argument is sound/valid, then your reasoning must therefore be correct.
Are you serious or just trolling? This was the argument of the ancient Greeks. Do you still hold onto views that are over 3000 years old?
>le utility monster
utility monster is a real thing
see feminism and positive racism
Formal logic, continentals get fucked
lol continental fags BTFO
HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER
Underrated
Nice one
How about the goal of utilitarianism is to maximize the median happiness rather than the total happiness. There, poof, utility monster gone, right?
In philosophy we have razors, as well as formal and informal fallacies to help discern the verity of ethical and metaphysical claims. We look for rational consistency between tenets of views and it's entailments to decide if it's worth serious consideration. It requires very creative and convoluted reasoning to say anything philosophically profound in much of philosophy, which leads outsiders (like op) to think that there is no method at all.
We hold onto plenty of views that are more than 3,000 years old. You're using a logical fallacy
ERROR: Plutocrat is experiencing too much happiness, must redistribute happiness to the center.
Solution: Move 2 dozen homeless people into Plutocrat mansion, situation resolved.
But the phenomenological method is ay-okay