Robert Gressis (UC Northridge), Dan Kaufman (Missouri State) and Kevin Currie-Knight (East Carolina) discuss what is and isn't realistic to expect of philosophy. Topics include realism (Rob) and antirealism (Dan and Kevin), foundationalism (maybe Rob) and antifoundationalism (Dan and Kevin), and what we do when we attempt to ground and justify our positions to others. The conversation sprang from a set of articles at Electric Agora. In one, Dan argued that philosophy is largely incapable of making sense of even basic moral considerations; in two others, Kevin argued that individual temperament plays a significant role in forming our philosophies.
2:10 - Dan Thinks Philosophy is Poor at Talking About Moral Commitments. Kevin Thinks Philosophy Owes Significantly to Individual Temperament. Rob Disagrees with Both Claims.13:08 - Is Foundationalism Just a Bad Metaphor (of Philosophy to Physical Space)? Can Philosophy Be Done From Outside a Particular Framework?25:14 - Rob Disagrees with Dan and Kevin's "Wittensteinian" Critiques of Foundationalism and Realism. (Freaky Friday is Also Discussed.)32:17 - Kevin's Pragmatic Account of What Kind of Truth Philosophy Can and Cannot Attain. Talking about Foundationalism.... Again.45:37 - Is (Particularly Moral) Philosophy "Just" a Matter of Opinion or Taste? (Are the Quotation Marks Necessary?)52 40 - When Should, and Why Do, We Give Reasons to "Justify" Moral Positions?
1:11:46 - Preview of a Promised Part 2 of This Discussion