2

Could all philosophical arguments have an anthropocentric bias, in the same way as a rational argument refers to the beliefs held by that person.

One could say that philosophy either is biased, or is not, only acording to some phylosophical argument.

Is this like the Heisenber's uncertainty principle?

In wich case, we can't avoid interfering with what we try to observe, just by performing the observation.

rraallvv
  • 431
  • 2
  • 10
  • Philosophers are often anthropocentric. But why would you think that philosophy itself is? – Xodarap Dec 05 '12 at 03:12
  • No one could deny the existence of mathematics of physics as an universal field of study, among extraterrestrial civilizations for instance. Is philosophy only innerent to a human condition? – rraallvv Dec 05 '12 at 03:29
  • 2
    I don't think you can get away from the mind articulating his understanding of his inner & outer experience, whether terrestial or not. But some arguments are more anthropocentric than others. You could say that Kant, indulging in his sensibilities of time/space doctrine was most certainly being anthropocentric. He saw it as being fundamental. You need that sensibility to structure the unmediated experience that is coming your way. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 05 '12 at 03:43
  • @Xodarap: its implicitly implied in the way we talk about Hegels theory, or Kants theory, surely. They have their disciples, and we call them Hegelians or Kantians. We do not chose a neutral-label to call them generally, like an idealist or a physicalist. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 05 '12 at 03:46

2 Answers2

2

If we allow the "anthro" in "anthropocentric" to not mean human but rather "intelligent consciousness capable of communicating philosophical idea", then I see no way to avoid either anthropocentrism in some sense or asserting some sort of Platonic Idea.

The argument is perhaps a little tired, but the fact is that all conceptual articulations and observations and deductions and inductions have an implicit asterisk that means "or so it appears in my consciousness apparati." Those relationships which the concepts codify may have an objective reality, but the articulation--and thus the concept--itself cannot be reductively removed from the communicating, conscious entity (i.e., the philosopher) without asserting that there are objective Concepts floating in the aether and it is ours to access them.

wmjbyatt
  • 725
  • 5
  • 11
-2

It is a dialogue between his inner world, and the world without; and a dialogue between himself, his peers, and past masters.

It is in some degree culturally conditioned, and in some degree objective; via the conventions held natural & agreed within the communities of philosophers.

And further, We are not God, so cannot attain absolute objectivity.

So yes, it is. And no, it is not.

Mozibur Ullah
  • 47,073
  • 14
  • 93
  • 243