The debate "Self expression is ethically necessary when discussing philisophical issues" was started by
June 29, 2015, 1:38 pm.
28 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
I_Voyager posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
I_Voyager, PsychDave, toughgamerjerry, raz, yasanjeewa, lybee, invincible_01, mace89, amanofprogress, sabrina, Quantum, alexithymia, Enigma, WordsDoMatter, bearunter, Georgi_ZKL24, Turtle, Trance, musejay1 and 9 visitors agree.
Bodaciouslady16, Sosocratese, kaka, Craven198787 and 2 visitors disagree.
I would argue that self expression is definitely a motivating factor for philosophical thinking and expression. However, it's not a ethical necessity. In philosophy, structure is everything. The subject of the topic is almost secondary to the structure of the argument. We can talk about ethics, charity, virtue, epistemology, metaphysics, beauty, etc.... and we can certainly let our own experiences guide those conversations, but the structure of the argument is still the most important aspect of philosophy. I have deep conflicts with some of the philosophical views that I hold because they go against my "intuition". My discussion with @I_Voyager on moral nihilism is one such topic. It certainly feels like there should be a right or wrong, it certainly feels like morality ought to exist. However, the arguments for an objective right or wrong aren't very strong or convincing and reason has pointed me towards nihilism regardless of my own "intuition" on the matter. I don't feel like I'm in any sort of ethical violation when I advance the arguments for nihilism even though I have deeply conflicting feelings on the subject. My philosophical views must be held purely on the strength of the argument rather than the feelings those arguments evoke. That is the spirit of philosophical debate in my opinion. So it is violating the spirit of philosophical debates which is the ethical dilemma in philosophy, not your believes or your feeling that may guide your ideas.
Violating the spirit of philosophical debate would come from an intellectually disingenuous arguments rather than denying self expression. Holding believes that are in contrast of each other is a huge part of the human experience, and inserting "feelings" into the conversation dilutes the logic that ought to be the center of any philosophical argument.
In most philosophical cases, there is no right or wrong, there are just different viewpoints. This means that self expression is a must. Even in cases where your philosophy or opinion is contradicted by facts, without self expression you would never be confronted with those facts.
Some academic issues require you abandon your self-expression in order to present the objective facts. Law and science are two such agencies. Things are true despite you therefore you complicate the truth with your self-expression.
However many other topics which are more strictly philosophical explain human natures, motives and other qualia. As you yourself are a human, you must be accounted for in your philosophy. You are also in the best position to account for your history, save only for a few family members who know you equally well or better. So when presenting certain topics of philosophy, it is also important to include your self-expression. This may be your emotional investment, your instinctive perspective, your artistic preference, your creative ideal. Whatever elements describe "you" divide you from the objective state which has no consciousness or self. Those objective realities will not describe you for you. You ought then assert your self wherever your self is not detrimental to the descriptor.