Philosophy is Overrated

Let me first start off by saying I certainly consider philosophy to be a vital field for understanding anything at all.  It is best used alongside science to verify scientific data through logic.  Granted, science does this naturally, but it is still worth mentioning.  However, upon coming across people who emerse themselves in philosophy as the only way of interpreting the world, explaining things, or justifying/refuting arguments about given subjects, I tend to come to the conclusion that philosophy is overrated.

This post will be remniscient of my previous post about science OR philosophy being a false dichotomy, but I feel this post will take this idea to the next level, as well as explain my personal views about philosophy.

Philosophy can certainly be a strong standing method on its own, but I do see this as a rarity.  Why?  Because most philosophy is a mere word game.  For the majority of this post, I shall focus on the idea popularized by Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, that is, the omnipotence paradox (i.e. can God create a stone that is so heavy that even He cannot lift it), because it is the motivation for this post.

Let us take this example and relate it to my word game claim.  The contradiction lies in the definition of omnipotence.  We generally accept omnipotence as being ‘all powerful.’  Most dictionaries will define it likewise, or have some variation of it.  However, in many ways, omnipotence can be a subjective term (or, as ironically merited by philosophy itself, all words and things are subjective).

For instance, Sir Francis Bacon says ‘Knowledge is Power.’  Who’s to say he isn’t correct?  And if so, who’s to say knowledge = power = God, as to say, Omniscience is Omnipotence is God.  This argument is philosophically sound, but therein lies the problem.  I shall return to this momentarily.

Even more confusing is the fact that the previous argument, can God create a stone that even he cannot lift, is a logical paradox, one that is philosophically sound.  Yet, at the same time, it is equally philosophically sound to say that the statement is self-cancelling.  Why?  Because of the subjectivity of philosophy.

Subjectivity is a huge problem with philosophy.  If we view the world as subjective, the laws of logic have no meaning, and philosophy itself collapses as a fallacy of its own nature.  But even if it isn’t subjective, who’s to say that our dictionary definitions are reflections of reality?

The biggest problem, in my opinion, with philosophy standing on its own, is that postulations (like those previously mentioned), can be philosophically logical and sound in the thought experiment, but when applied to reality, they collapse under, what else, but common sense.

Ironically, the real solution (or what seems to be so for all logical purposes) to the omniscience-omnipotence paradox is actually a point against my atheist standpoint, but it must be mentioned here to prove my point.

Saying that God, an all powerful being, could create something that makes him not all powerful is not a logical statement when applied to reality.  Some would argue that the fact that he cannot limit himself effectively limits himself.  But when thoroughly examined, that is, in itself, a ridiculous statment.  It’s the equivilent of saying:

‘I’m the most powerful thing ever, and I always will be, so that makes me not the most powerful thing ever.’

It is, itself, ridiculous.

I will probably post more on this in the future, but for now, I feel this information should suffice.  Clearly, philosophy very rarely stands on its own.  The beauty of truth could be found much more quickly if philosophers used reality as a way of checking their thoughts.

Tags: Atheism, False Dichotomy, God, Logic, Philosophy, Science, Theism