Do Philosophers Universally Agree on Anything?

[Invader]

Is there any one philosophical theory that can be agreed upon by all philosophers (philosopher in this case being those who have spent extensive time studying the subject)? How many different arguments are there for truth, consciousness, human nature, purpose, how to live a good life, and so on? If there is one thing that I can accept in totality, it's that there is no real truth in the universe. Truth is a human invention, a matter of make believe that cannot exist without a mind to think about it. But what I just said is also no more than a belief, and what truth is there in my belief? Input.

[sloth]

No. And that's the beauty of it. There is no universal truth, and truth itself is in the eye of the beholder. Eat some mushrooms. Then you'll understand. XD

[mysterious dreamer]

That's an easy one. No one agrees on anything. Someone's bound to disagree with what you said btw. :p

[spockman]

"The only certainty, the only absolute truth in life that you can accept with certainty is this, you exist. The manner in which you exist, be it part of a universal conciousness or as another person's thoughts or even as some metaphysical manifestation is irrelevant to this end. To have even a semblance of thought or illusion of life, this existance is compulsory." ~Whitstine I've yet to find anyone, (or hear even a philosoher,) who has been able to disagree with this.

[Alric]

Nope, everyone sees everything differently, and if everyone agrees with the idea that every sees things different, then we are all wrong.

[dreamingofdreaming]

No. And that's the beauty of it. There is no universal truth, and truth itself is in the eye of the beholder. Eat some mushrooms. Then you'll understand. XD

[grasshoppa]

Don't eat shrooms. They don't make you understand anything lol. They leave you more confused and lost than when you started.

[Licity]

Philosophers agree that philosophy is cool. That's about all...

[nerve]

"The only certainty, the only absolute truth in life that you can accept with certainty is this, you exist. The manner in which you exist, be it part of a universal conciousness or as another person's thoughts or even as some metaphysical manifestation is irrelevant to this end. To have even a semblance of thought or illusion of life, this existance is compulsory." ~Whitstine I've yet to find anyone, (or hear even a philosoher,) who has been able to disagree with this. I'm no great philosopher or anything but I disagree. I believe nothing exists. really. Don't eat shrooms. They don't make you understand anything lol. They leave you more confused and lost than when you started. maybe you just ate the wrong shrooms? ;) and LOL @ Licity's reply

[Taosaur]

They <3 Phil.

[Beeyahoi]

Don't eat shrooms. They don't make you understand anything lol. They leave you more confused and lost than when you started. Wrong. Well, I guess not wrong for everybody, but wrong for many.

[spockman]

I'm no great philosopher or anything but I disagree. I believe nothing exists. really. Explain how nothing exists a little more, if you please. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just wondering how you mean that, because the qoute does encompass the new-age "Nothing is really here, man." If you have another one, and would elaborate, I would appreciate it.

[Lord Bennington]

Don't objectivists (or one of those movements) argue that you can prove the world around you? I've got a philosophy book that really covers all the bases, but it's really logic (if A then B) driven and I can't bring myself to read it. No examples, really.

[deathxel]

I'm no great philosopher or anything but I disagree. I believe nothing exists. really. your right. you are no great philosopher.

[Invader]

"The only certainty, the only absolute truth in life that you can accept with certainty is this, you exist. The manner in which you exist, be it part of a universal conciousness or as another person's thoughts or even as some metaphysical manifestation is irrelevant to this end. To have even a semblance of thought or illusion of life, this existance is compulsory." ~Whitstine I've yet to find anyone, (or hear even a philosoher,) who has been able to disagree with this. Upon my agreement of your post I realized that my original question could have been expounded upon. What I wanted to add (and should have added) was that philosophy can't so far actually prove something to someone else, and it includes your statement. Yes, I can certainly agree that I exist, but I cannot prove that to you. I can also tell you that YOU exist, but you can only prove that to yourself. I can at least belief it. But as far as the nature of reality goes, anything else? I've been picking up a bit on Wittgenstein and Richard Rorty, who have inspired these thoughts (for me).

[Bonsay]

I'm no great philosopher or anything but I disagree. I believe nothing exists. really. How does that work. At least something exists. Your consciousness and sensory perception. For example.

[DeathCell]

Don't eat shrooms. They don't make you understand anything lol. They leave you more confused and lost than when you started. Not necessarily.

[Xei]

Cogito ergo sum? That's about it. Well done Descartes.

[dreamingofdreaming]

Don't eat shrooms. They don't make you understand anything lol. They leave you more confused and lost than when you started. If a bunch of "philosophers" were to go camping in some desolite location and eat mushrooms I guarantee they would all agree on many things on many levels on many dimensions... I see this thread becoming more a debate on the effects of shrooms and philosophy though..... probably been done before, should be done again... for I believe truth, clarity and universal agreement can come out through "psychedelic glasses" Not being bananashit insane before you eat them, also helps....

[Taosaur]

Cogito ergo sum? That's about it. Well done Descartes. Perhaps all philosophers agree on cogito, but ergo sum doesn't necessarily follow.

[Bonsay]

Perhaps all philosophers agree on cogito, but ergo sum doesn't necessarily follow. If you're not sum, then how can you cogito. Isn't then the only possible answer cogito ergo sum?

[Taosaur]

If you're not sum, then how can you cogito. Isn't then the only possible answer cogito ergo sum? Nope, and certainly not the only position taken by philosophers. One alternate view is "I am so long as I think I am," that when the subject ceases saying "I," it is not present, and the conviction of a persistent personal identity is a fiction authored by the "I" each time it resumes.

[Bonsay]

I don't see why "I am so long as I think I am" wouldn't fall under "I think therefore I am".

[Taosaur]

I don't see why "I am so long as I think I am" wouldn't fall under "I think therefore I am". You can wedge it in semantically, but it directly opposes the philosophy behind "Cogito ergo sum." Where Descartes presented thought as definitive evidence of a thinker, I'm proposing that the thinker is a product of the thoughts, without prior or independent existence. The subject is a passing activity of consciousness, not the source of consciousness.

[Kromoh]

One thing all philosophers agree on: logic. The logical method: non-contradiction, obligatory logical implications, and all of its consequences (which involves many fields of philosophy). This is a complicated matter, which involves groups theory, cause and consequence, affirmation and negation, etc etc. On the scientific level, you can also take historic fact as valid logic (as long as the fact is real, of course). Truth is not a human invention. But, of course, what humans take for true isn't necessarily so. Philosophers don't even agree about the existence of consciousness (as in, experimentation) - a great group defends the idea of illusion of consciousness.