If you see that every philosophical argument carries minimally the personal truth of one’s convictions, than doesn't the question become to what extent one is merely using philosophy as polemic of one’s cognitive bias seeking confirmation bias?

Tagged:

Philosophy is the careful and studied effort to come up with positions that aren’t dictated by “the personal truth of one’s convictions.” It’s a bit like math in that regard. You’re hacking away at problems that have been hacked away on since Ancient Greece. Every position has been studied and restudied and considered and cast in new light, over and over and over again.

The word we use to describe the set of mental skills needed to divorce your positions from your feelings is rigor. You need to be able to identify potential problems with your position and where to find resolutions. Then you need to be able to articulate them and write them down such that other people can see your work.

If you’re not trained in philosophical rigor, then your efforts will be riddled with various bias errors. As a result, Internet arguments regarding philosophy almost never add anything of substance to the state of the art. If you want to introduce philosophy into any particular argument, then it behooves you to read up on the concepts first.

For example, I am an objective idealist, someone who holds that everything that exists does that existing in mind, and that there a mind outside of the human realm that holds it all in. You can relate objective idealism to other forms of idealism, to other forms of monism, and then finally with contrasting forms of conceptualizations of existence such as dualism, pluralism and nihilism.