Philosophy Without Justification

There is no justification, but there is nothing irrational about holding beliefs without justification.

[KaneB]

Moral normativity:

Hume's skepticism about reason:

[InventiveHarvest]

You should continue using you computer because it isn't broken. It isn't broken because the moon is made of cheese.

[shafouingue]

Kane B is my favorite postmodern philosopher

[amirguri]

One potential problem with not believing in justification is that you're more prone to holding onto false beliefs, as you're no longer expecting your beliefs to be supported by good reasons.

[havenbastion]

Skepticism is the best place to start and the worst place to stay.

[kelseymaypole]

Thank you for this! You’ve given words to a sentiment that’s been floating around in my head for a while. Maybe this is only sort of related, but I puzzle over what makes an argument fail— specifically reduction to absurdity. What /is/ absurdity? It’s odd to me that arguments are sometimes framed as games where the object is to come up with reasons that align with the other stuff you “want” to believe, or that someone else is willing to accept. Idk if I explained that well, I’m an amateur lol

[alvbjo]

Karl Popper argued that there was no justification either!

[chalaboy]

I tend to agree with your moral antirealism, and, since there's so many "impossible" obstacles to justify knowledge in a strong way, I tend to agree the aproach of philosophy you just described. And I find it so curious how much philosophy can change our view of the world, because your aproach is so improbable to a person who is not familiar with philosophy...

[chahuncoller]

I suggest you a video. Watch this short video for results on intelligence and the self that even philosophy and psychology professors haven't achieved yet. The name of the video is WHAT IS TABULA RASA? WHAT IS IQ INTELLIGENCE? WHAT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THEM?

[lbjvg]

Lots to thinks about. Some thoughts: 1. Don’t you think there is an implicit normativity of giving and receiving reasons in a conversation? 2. Be a philosophic artist - create new concepts!

[BurnigLegionsBlade]

It reminds me of a position I also hold, which was inspired by Richard Rorty's concept of a Final Vocabulary and Ironism

[Alien-eeqp]

Interesting video, i think that holding this position would make you more susceptible to explore new philosophies or to establish new ways of looking at the world, so if anything, fighting dogmatism would be a good start towards achieving that . idk if it s good to think about it as a static position or a view, for me it seems more like a technique or a practice, similar to discart meditation

[numbynumb]

"Philosophy Without Justification" - a good title for a book

[onion]

Why do “good” reasons have to be normative, couldn’t “good” just mean truth-tracking?

[Opposite]

The reason why there are no privileged reasons is because every reason is a good reason. Since every proposition is true, it is impossible to not come to a true conclusion.

The reason why you can have a reason that the moon is made of cheese is because the moon is actually made of cheese.

I also think that it doesn’t matter if the realist art of „mirroring reality“ is incoherent or not since reality itself is incoherent.

[HexRey]

For me, I act as if there exists a universe governed by deterministic laws for pragmatic reasons. I don’t know if the universe is actually like that or not, but if it is, I can use those regularities to make accurate predictions and achieve what I want to do. I’d like other people to do the same, but it’s not really something I can argue unless they have similar values of reasoning and pragmatism as me and I can appeal to them. And there’s other things I want to do, such as reducing the worst suffering experienced, that others might not care about and there’s not really much I can do argument-wise if we don’t hold similar desires about it. I don’t really have true normative justifications when it comes to having such values, that’s just kinda how I am I guess. I’m glad that I’m apparently not the only one who has thought about this and come to similar conclusions.

[Mark-dnxo]

1) WHEN you didn't have this position and believed in normativity and that there are better and worse reasons for positions, did you have good reasons to abandon that commonsense position? If not then wouldn't abandoning that position be akin to being hit on the head or being brainwashed and thus have your beliefs formed and modified by non-rational means?

2) If the position you described in the video is truly your view, shouldn't you not be a philosopher at all but rather an artist or sophist or a Nietzsche-like poet/writer?

[AshesDe]

Damn, the hair is gone, but at least we still get the great content, love your stuff

[marsglorious]

This has real Pyrrhonian Skepticism vibes.

[ashikpanigrahi]

The philosophy is known as Critical rationalism from Karl Popper.