Philosophistry

Amidst the legions of armchair philosophers, there exists a special breed; this philosopher is one who looks upon problems not to determine any inherent worth or value, but to find a way to reconcile it with his own beliefs. This philosopher is apart from those who debate such topics as a matter of sport, as they are not seeking amusement, but to counter anything that is contrary to their desired viewpoint. While not limited to such, this philosophist (A term apart from regular sophistry, as these people are capable of perfectly sound reasoning) are often found in the realms of theological philosophy – primarily on the side of defending theology, but also numerous on the opposite end of the spectrum.

The philosophist is similarly apart from typical apologists, as it does not strictly defend a belief against opposing viewpoints, but proactively seeks to take those viewpoints and shift them to reinforce something other than that which was originally intended. An example of this: Christian theology states that God made the Earth, as well as everything on it. While not every Christian is a young Earth creationist, there is still a general belief in the concept that God willed it, and it was. A philosophist reasoning would thus be that evolution is technically true; that God created the earth in stages through evolution.

The above would be a case of one philosophy attempting to absorb a separate, distinct philosophy (or other line of thinking, as evolution is not precisely a philosophy). There is nothing specific about evolution to require the addition of Intelligent Design, and nothing inherent within ID to require the usage of evolution as the primary model of creation. However, by combining the two, the Christian viewpoint gains a legitimacy that it previously lacked, by adopting and adapting an independent theory into its own intellectual framework. This assimilation of standalone philosophies has the potential to confuse or contradict other theories, by interjecting an irrelevant variable: the existence of a god.

It is important to note that philosophistry only borders the method of disproving a theory within its own framework. To refer once more to Christianity, there is a prevalent theological issue known as the “problem of evil” – the belief that a god that exhibits both omnipotence and omnibenevolence cannot therefore allow evil to exist. While the merits of this quandary are a constant subject of debate, it is a legitimate example of using the facets of a philosophy to disprove other facets of the same. The defining factor here is that the argument exists purely within an in-universe perspective, and does not introduce an independent philosophy to support or counter the claims of the first – it is a case of dogma eat dogma.

In summary, a philosophist must introduce an external philosophy or idea that exists independent of the philosophist’s own ideology, and use it to validate or support the aforementioned dogma; it may also be used in conjunction with the philosophist’s own views to refute a second independent philosophy. The second philosophy must similarly be unrelated to the first, making the connection rely upon argumentation that is only relevant to one of the two theories. Returning to the example of evolution: ID is independent of evolution, as the two are not related unless ID is independently true. However, one may argue that evolution is true, as fossils found within the earth show a change in shape and format, with the age established by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is one form of proof, which exists independent of evolution, but uses the same evidence (fossils) to establish its validity.

For another example, take Mark Twain’s thesis “The Damned Human Race.” In it, he presupposes the existence of deontological ethics – a belief that an action is necessarily right or wrong, devoid of consequences – and that affronts to this philosophy are only the product of rational, thinking beings: humans. He juxtaposes this belief with an argument that non-sapient creatures do not commit such acts, thus inferring that the natural state is true deontology. This is a form of philosophistry, as it infers an independent philosophy upon an unrelated subject. The belief is that the natural state is so because it is the product of deontology, rather than a belief that deontology is the recognition of an ideal within the natural state.

In mathematical terms, X = true. This is fact, no matter what other variables are introduced; other variables all represent a value of 0. Therefore, if X = true, and a new theory states that Y + X = true, Y is irrelevant, as X = true with or without Y. The philosophist introduces Y as a justification for X, a reinterpretation of X, or an association with X; however, in all of these situations, X is true before Y enters the equation, thus Y is an extraneous factor.

To conclude, philosophistry is a form of logical fallacy, in that it presents an irrelevant variable to supplement or justify an independent truth or belief. It is a fallacy that should be avoided when arguing amidst the framework of two or more philosophies, as using this method within an existing independent framework is often feasible, depending upon the specifics of the scenario. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all correlations and associations fall under this category; if the variable is true from the same or closely related evidence as the given factor, then they are already linked; the justification for one is justification for the other, whereas in the fallacy, the justification for X is not the justification for Y.