There ऀð Is ऀð No ऀð Progress ऀð in ऀð Philosophy ऀð

ð ð Abstract ð ð Except ð for ð a ð patina ð of ð twenty�괂Ġfirst ð century ð modernity, ð in ð the ð form ð of ð logic ð and ð language, ð philosophy ð is ð exactly ð the ð same ð now ð as ð it ð ever ð was; ð it ð has ð made ð no ð progress ð whatsoever. ð ð We ð philosophers ð wrestle ð with ð the ð exact ð same ð problems ð the ð Pre�괂Ġ Socratics ð wrestled ð with. ð ð Even ð more ð outrageous ð than ð this ð claim, ð though, ð is ð the ð blatant ð denial ð of ð its ð obvious ð truth ð by ð many ð practicing ð philosophers. ð The ð No�괂ĠProgress ð view ð is ð explored ð and ð argued ð for ð here. ð Its ð denial ð is ð diagnosed ð as ð a ð form ð of ð anosognosia, ð a ð mental ð condition ð where ð the ð affected ð person ð denies ð there ð is ð any ð problem. ð ð The ð theories ð of ð two ð eminent ð philosophers ð supporting ð the ð No�괂ĠProgress ð view ð are ð also ð examined. ð ð The ð final ð section ð offers ð an ð explanation ð for ð philosophy's ð inability ð to ð solve ð any ð philosophical ð problem, ð ever. ð ð The ð paper ð closes ð with ð some ð reflections ð on ð philosophy's ð future. ð ð ð 1. ð How ð Philosophy ð is ð like ð Science ð ð I'm ð a ð professor ð in ð a ð philosophy ð department. ð ð Most ð of ð my ð philosophical ð colleagues ð study ð ethics ð of ð one ð sort ð or ð another. ð ð We ð have ð in ð our ð department ð several ð consequentialists, ð a ð couple ð of ð deontologists ð and ð moral ð essentialists, ð a ð couple ð of ð virtue ð ethicists, ð and ð a ð few ð relativists. ð ð It ð is ð a ð commonplace ð that ð these ð views, ð at ð least ð in ð certain ð well�괂Ġknown ð formulations, ð are ð incompatible ð with ð each ð other. ð Certainly, ð most ð of ð my ð colleagues ð believe ð this. ð Most ð also ð believe ð that ð he ð or ð she ð is ð right. ð ð Since ð they ð also ð believe ð in ð theory�괂Ġincompatiablism, ð they ð believe ð that ð their ð colleagues ð are ð wrong. ð ð The ð consequentialists ð (a ð group ð to ð which ð I ð do ð not ð belong) ð are ð particularly ð

[1]  E. Sober,et al.  Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences , 1994 .

[2]  Cora Diamond Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. , 1983 .

[3]  T. Nagel The view from nowhere , 1987 .

[4]  Leonid Rozenblit,et al.  The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Colin McGinn Wittgenstein on Meaning: An Interpretation and Evaluation , 1989 .

[6]  R. Dawkins Burying the vehicle , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  Cora Diamond Scepticism, Rules and Language , 1985 .

[8]  D. Wilson A theory of group selection. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  C. Zahn-Waxler,et al.  Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. , 1999 .

[10]  Elisabetta Pierazzo,et al.  The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary , 2010, Science.

[11]  Eric Dietrich,et al.  After the Humans are Gone , 2007 .

[12]  J. Sterba The Triumph of Practice over Theory in Ethics , 2004 .

[13]  R. Kirk,et al.  Problems in Philosophy: the Limits of Inquiry. , 1993 .

[14]  Allan Gibbard,et al.  Contingent identity , 1975, J. Philos. Log..

[15]  David Sloan Wilson,et al.  Evolution "for the Good of the Group The process known as group selection was once accepted unthinkingly, then was widely discredited; it's time for a more discriminating assessment , 2008 .

[16]  Geoffrey W. Sutton Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon , 2009 .

[17]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  Naming and Necessity , 1980 .