Dan is starting his first year in philosophy. It’s going to be a little difficult for him, or for anyone in his position, picking a position and sticking to it when he is at the very start of the learning process.
And Dan’s professor and you, apparently, shouldn’t assume first year philosophy students were born yesterday and have not given crucial philosophical issues the slightest attention at all prior to entering those hallowed halls.
I prefer my first philosophy professor’s notion that we were all born philosophers with a gaping appetite to understand truth.
I doubt if his professor would be too impressed either, Dan trying to mount a defence of an aspect of philosophy on Day 1 when he hasn’t been given any information.
What were all the philosophical dogmas handed out on Day 1?
Philosophy is a set of methods, not information. The “information” has been accruing since birth. The question is what to do with the information to make sense of it. No where does “freedom” enter into the formula except under the presumption that constraints to thinking have been severely hampering thought up until Day 1 of philosophy class. Dogmas or doctrines are NOT constraints on thinking.
You don’t critique a book without reading it first. You don’t defend a position without knowing the alternatives. You don’t mount an argument unless you are reasonably conversant with the matter in hand. You don’t pick a position when you don’t know what the options are.
And lucky for me you have a thick skin. I’d hate to think I’d upset you by pointing out that you were wrong.
And lucky for me I have the good fortune of discussing this matter with someone so concerned about my self-esteem :tiphat:.
Simply reading a book does not give you the tools by which to critique a book. A set of dogmas could be considered a “book” of sorts.
So, again, your defense is shallow because dogmas or doctrines in themselves do not “oppose” philosophy. Philosophy can provide the tools to make sense of why those dogmas or doctrines function as dogmas or doctrines. There is no essential conflict between dogmas and philosophy just as there is no essential conflict between the words an author sets down in a book as his or her definitive statement or claim to represent the “truth” as they see it and any critique that may result from someone reading the book.
Dogmas are simply statements of definitive truth by some party or other. In a sense, they are meant to be challenged because of what they purport to be. They are intended to be taken seriously, unlike empty or callow expressions of doubt or skepticism.
A side note: This, by the way, is why I have no patience for supposed atheists. They don’t even try to carve out their own philosophical position or express it as a positive statement but, rather, take their pots shots at what they oppose. An atheist would have much more credibility if s/he stood for something like metaphysical naturalism or eliminative materialism in a positive sense and tried to defend that defined position against critique.
I would suppose this is why you find the “blank slate” idea appealing because it justifies holding a non-position and retreating to it when the going gets tough.
But enough about me.
I noticed that you haven’t expressed an opinion about the professor’s self-refuting and dogmatic claim that religious or political dogmas or doctrines are in opposition to the “freedom of thought” ideal of philosophy.
Dogmas or doctrines do not restrict anyone’s capacity to think – in fact, they make excellent fodder FOR thinking. They would only pose a problem for someone whose thinking is impotent and who cannot, therefore, address the truth content of any dogma meaningfully or teach impressionable minds how to assess the truth claims on their own merit – neither of which should pose a problem for a professor of philosophy, one would suppose.
