This is interesting food for thought, but I have a different perspective on this part:
>>"Unfortunately, we live in a world where if your work isn’t based on a previous big philosophical concept, then it likely won’t be taken seriously because the field heavily relies on credibility. Should thoughts have “credibility”? Should we treat every single thought equally, no matter whose mouth it comes out of? It certainly isn’t like that today, but I think it should exist in an ideal world.
This is apparent in science, where every new scientific discovery has to be based on a previous one." <<
I do not believe that science works this way at all. New scientific discoveries can indeed be new, there just needs to be evidence backing them up and other scientists/researchers must be able to replicate experiments and get the same results. There is no *requirement* that science needs to be based on previous work at all. It just turns out that when you have models/theorems/laws that work, it's easy to build on top of them and explore new avenues.
To apply this understanding of how science works to the field of philosophy, I would say that focus should not be on *who* is speaking. It is not a matter of, "Should we treat every single thought equally, no matter whose mouth it comes out of?" What matters is the *idea* presented, and the same logic of science should apply, namely can you defend the thought/idea? Is there evidence backing it up? Does it describe reality well? Is it useful? In this way it is legitimate to consider philosophy a science. If the "thought" passes rigorous questioning, then that is what should give it "credibility." It is not who said it, or that it is based on previous work, that matters.
This is interesting food for thought, but I have a different perspective on this part:
>>"Unfortunately, we live in a world where if your work isn’t based on a previous big philosophical concept, then it likely won’t be taken seriously because the field heavily relies on credibility. Should thoughts have “credibility”? Should we treat every single thought equally, no matter whose mouth it comes out of? It certainly isn’t like that today, but I think it should exist in an ideal world.
This is apparent in science, where every new scientific discovery has to be based on a previous one." <<
I do not believe that science works this way at all. New scientific discoveries can indeed be new, there just needs to be evidence backing them up and other scientists/researchers must be able to replicate experiments and get the same results. There is no *requirement* that science needs to be based on previous work at all. It just turns out that when you have models/theorems/laws that work, it's easy to build on top of them and explore new avenues.
To apply this understanding of how science works to the field of philosophy, I would say that focus should not be on *who* is speaking. It is not a matter of, "Should we treat every single thought equally, no matter whose mouth it comes out of?" What matters is the *idea* presented, and the same logic of science should apply, namely can you defend the thought/idea? Is there evidence backing it up? Does it describe reality well? Is it useful? In this way it is legitimate to consider philosophy a science. If the "thought" passes rigorous questioning, then that is what should give it "credibility." It is not who said it, or that it is based on previous work, that matters.
I agree! The ideas should be the main motive in philosophy, regardless of who shared them. Thanks for reading:)