by Daniel A. Kaufman
Robert Gressis (Cal State Northridge), Dan Kaufman (Missouri State) and Kevin Currie-Knight (East Carolina) discuss what is and isn’t realistic to expect of philosophy. Topics include realism (Rob) and antirealism (Dan and Kevin), Foundationalism (maybe Rob) and anti-Foundationalism (Dan and Kevin), and what we do when we attempt to ground and justify our positions to others. The conversation sprang from a set of articles at the Electric Agora. In one, Dan argued that philosophy is largely incapable of making sense of even basic moral considerations; in two others, Kevin argued that individual temperament plays a significant role in forming our philosophies.
2:10 – Dan Thinks Philosophy is Poor at Talking About Moral Commitments. Kevin Thinks Philosophy Owes Significantly to Individual Temperament. Rob Disagrees. 13:08 – Is 02:10 – Dan Thinks Philosophy is Poor at Talking About Moral Commitments. Kevin Thinks Philosophy Owes Significantly to Individual Temperament. Rob Disagrees. 13:08 – Is Foundationalism Based on a Bad Metaphor? Can Philosophy Be Done From Outside a Particular Framework? 25:14 – Rob Disagrees with Dan and Kevin’s “Wittgensteinian” Critiques of Foundationalism and Realism. (Freaky Friday is Also Discussed.) 32:17 – Kevin’s Pragmatic Account of What Kind of Truth Philosophy Can and Cannot Attain. Talking about Foundationalism…. Again. 45:37 – Is (Particularly Moral) Philosophy “Just” a Matter of Opinion or Taste? (Are the Quotation Marks Necessary?) 52:40 – When Should, and Why Do, We Give Reasons to “Justify” Moral Positions? 1:11:46 – Preview of a Promised Part 2 of This Discussion