- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The main scientific principle recommends “question everything, clarify, improve” – this is very productive for all sciences and philosophy and people's worldview.
The opposite lazy dogmatic principle recommends the opposite :” everything new is suspicious and dangerous.”
I can't vouch for Montaigne, but the logic seems clear. An attribute (an integral feature) of philosophy is critical thinking, the ability to look at a topic from different points of view. The opposite – absolute confidence, no doubt – is fanaticism. Whether it is religious or” just ” ideological, it is fanaticism.
A philosophical argument is apodictic (sorry for the matyug) – a dispute for the sake of finding out the truth-which means that there is an openness to reconsider your point of view.
A fanatic's argument is of any kind – eristic (to convince at any cost) or sophistic (to win at any cost).
Although… This is Montaigne and me, maybe we think so, about the attribute)) I can well imagine a peremptory professor of philosophy – and a philosopher, after all!
…But not Montaigne…
Philosophy as one of the forms of cognition makes the subject of its reflections such extremely general questions, the answers to which cannot be characterized as unambiguous and follow from evidence; often these include questions that are classified as eternal, requiring consideration taking into account the specifics of the established type of culture of the historical era, the ideological orientations of this era, the achieved level of development of philosophical and scientific knowledge. Therefore, the philosophizing subject cannot be sure of the absolute truth of his conclusions. If we take into account the specifics of these issues, it is possible that his predecessors, to whom he refers, may have introduced subjective-theological, stereotypical or prejudiced ideas into the knowledge being formed. Therefore, every philosophizing thinker is guided by the principle of doubt, which presupposes a critical-reflexive attitude to knowledge. The doubting mind seeks to build its conclusions on rationally based and logical-methodological grounds, and thereby give knowledge a valuable character.