I sometimes meet a lot of cynics and skeptics, people who try to doubt everything or make fun of everything. I think the main problem with this philosophy--besides for the fact that people who adhere to it tend to be arrogant jerks--is that it's inconsistent.
I meant, if you're a true skeptic and you really doubt everything, the first thing you should doubt is the skeptical method. And if you're a cynic, the first thing you should be cynical about is cynicism. I mean, you never hear lifelong cynics say things like this:
Noah: (cynically) Oh, yeah, being cynical. That's going to make a difference.
Other philosophical methods have the problem of being inconsistent, in that they follow basic principles but don't apply these principles to the principles themselves. Here, I'm thinking of subjectivism and pragmatism and moral relativism.
Subjectivism says that everything is subjective. What's good to Person X may not be good to Person Y. People will jump into subjectivism a lot when you try to ask why a particular piece of art has positive qualities. My problem with subjectivism has always been that the premise of subjectivism--"everything is subjective"--is put forth as an objective statement, not a subjective one. It has to be an objective statement, or else their philosophy has a weak grounding, but that's still ridiculous because the premise of subjectivism dispoves subjectivism. They should be more honest and change the premise of subjectivism to "everything is subjective...except for this premise".
Another problem I have with subjectivism/pragmatism is that it usually breaks the law of non-contradiction, one of the basic logical principles. And furthermore...
Hey, where did all the non-philosophy majors go?