Chalmer Heads Will Prevail

Chalmers presents a short paper on the lack of convergence in philosophy.  He claims there is no convergence of truth in philosophy.  I think few would disagree with this.  He offers several explanations as to why, and in the end encourages philosophers to keep trying.  I think there is more hope for convergence now, and I think there is further progress to be had without convergence.


Chalmers’ main argument is: (1) There has not been convergence on the issues of philosophy; (2) If there is not convergence on issues, there is not convergence on the truth; (C1) Therefore, there is not a convergence on the truth.  Personally, I think an easier argument is simply: (3) There is a wide variety of philosophical solutions that are contrary to each other; (C2) So, at most one philosophical solution is correct (true in virtue of “contrary”); (4) If at most one philosophical solution is correct and there is a wide variety of solutions, then there is not convergence on the truth of philosophy; So, (C).

Chalmers also offers several explanations for this lack of convergence.  Some are simple, some are complex.  I think a very simple and accurate explanation: there is not a convergence of intuitions.  Further, as is the topic of my dissertation, that one’s intuition is contrary to another’s does not explain why the other’s intuition is false.

All in all, I have no major beef with Chalmer’s short little paper.  I have argued in this post there is a solution to these philosophical problems.  However, some—if not most or all—will disagree with it.  Leaving this aside, I thought he was a little short sighted in describing other possible avenues for philosophical progress.  Gary Gutting has described how we can have ever more refined philosophical pictures in philosophy.  This is useful for we are usually set on a philosophical solution, and better understanding that solution lets the believe better understand what one believes.  Or, one learns how one’s own position can be true.  There is something further, I think.  I think Gutting is right that we will more sophisticated or more “right” versions of one’s own beliefs.  I further think that by discovering what one believes, one discovers what one has faith in.  Are you a naturalist?  You likely have faith in the physical sciences.  Are you an agnostic?  You likely have faith in human reason.  Are you a nihilist?  You likely have faith in nothing.  Learning what you have faith in can be both a very humbling and scary thing.  However, it is also something that helps you grow as a human being.