Recently my writings have been criticized, and my ‘credentials’ as a philosopher have been called into question. One of the more common accusations has been that my arguments couldn’t be right because I am not well read on the subjects on which I was writing.
Assuming this was true for a second, I can’t fathom why this is relevant to the legitimacy of my arguments. Surely, my opponents are not blaming me for not making an appeal to authority — and an argument can’t be wrong solely on the grounds of whether or not somebody has made the argument before (or not made the argument before). Arguments should be judged based on the content therein, and not based on the reading habits of the person making them.
However, the previous assumption is simply not true. Being a philosophy student, I have the pleasure of reading the arguments of many philosophers in all different fields. The objection seems to originate more from the fact that I disagree with certain prominent philosophers. But the fact of the matter is, I am not obliged to agree with the opinions of philosophers who have come before me, regardless of how well recognized they are. Just because Peter Singer published an article on morality, it does not mean that the debate is now closed and any opinion I may have is irrelevant.
Philosophy is also one of those rare fields where modern works are not necessarily any better or worse than ancient works. Plato and Aristotle made just as relevant points as did Singer and Wittgenstein. Furthermore, as has been shown time and time again, there are no definitive answers in philosophy, and therefore no way to refute any philosophic thought so thoroughly that it cannot be revived. Therefore, the idea that an argument can be irrelevant simply because the person making the argument has not kept up-to-date with the scholastic debate in that field is utterly absurd*.
I don’t claim to be as intelligent or eloquent as some of the great philosophers; and I welcome all criticism (constructive or otherwise) on the content of my posts. However, keep in mind that there are some philosophers whose views I do not ascribe to; and there are some concepts, which I do not view as legitimate. This doesn’t mean I’m close-minded and unwilling to engage in debate, it just means that I have thoughts and opinions that are independent of others’.
*Of course, if the person’s goal is to enter in to that scholarly debate, it is probably best if they know the status of the debate.
As this seems to be a response to something I had commented to the effect of on Facebook, I’ll quote myself from there to here, with the bolding for emphasis for the point I want to make:
“To engage in armchair[ing] in academic disciplines would be to argue for a position without considering and researching what other people have said about it. To armchair is to fail to engage with the live debate on an issue (and be doomed to irrelevance) which is why it is a bad idea to put too much stock in armchair ANYONES.”
If you’ll notice, the emphasis was never on authority (who said it) but just a failure to consider and research what has been said before you, whether it was by Singer or Aristotle, a dissertation by someone you know (of), or just properly representing the arguments of the positions you wind up aligning yourself against.
Still, an argument is not irrelevant simply because it does not address what was said before it. There may already be half a dozen (or more) brilliant responses to the arguments I have made — that doesn’t mean the argument is wrong. Keep in mind my goal was not to engage in the ongoing academic debate, but rather just to make the arguments. If this makes me an ‘armchair philosopher’ in the eyes of some, then so be it.
I agree that properly representing the arguments of the opposition is important, so I have tried to do that. I may not have always achieved this, but I feel that this is a separate matter on which I always welcome criticism.