Question

Hume seemed to prove that we are not justified in believing our inductions. Popper, who is very popular among scientists, thought that statements are only ever falsified. Moral error theorists say anything goes. While these sorts of positions aren't generally held, at least in that form (Popper tried to add 'corroboration', the claim that a theory is closer to the truth than falsified and uninformative statements, just never believed they were true or likely to be true; Hume said we should follow habit anyway), is philosophy bad for your health?

Are these isolated cases (we would starve to death if we lacked a nuanced understanding of Hume) or is a lot of philosophy like this?

Answer 1

Philosophy, through skepticism and critical thinking, encourages a rigorous examination of the world rather than leading to inaction or detrimental outcomes. David Hume's is-ought problem and Karl Popper's falsification theory serve as examples of such philosophical scrutiny.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question addresses the impact of philosophical skepticism and the limits of empirical knowledge, as discussed by philosophers like David Hume and Karl Popper, on one's ability to navigate the world. Hume's skepticism, especially his ideas surrounding the is-ought problem, argues that moral judgments cannot be derived from empirical facts, while Popper's philosophy of science suggests that scientific theories can't be proven true, only falsified. The concern about whether philosophy is detrimental to one's health may stem from the perception that such skeptical and critical approaches can lead to inaction or nihilism.

However, philosophical skepticism actually encourages rigorous thinking and the habit of questioning, which can be healthy and constructive. Philosophy, when correctly understood and applied, does not lead us to starve or become dysfunctional but teaches us to approach knowledge and ethics with a critical mindset.