Lisa asked:

I am having trouble thinking abstractly. Arguing for the sake of arguing seems like begging the
question/ circular reasoning to me. Can we or should we come to conclusions in philosophy or not? If
most of philosophy is subjective than how does anyone come to a conclusion? Even if you could
prove objective truth there are people who would still disbelieve just for the sake of argument. I find it
enormously confusing, even though it is fascinating.

============

Don't worry about abstract thinking. If you are student, just try to understand. I agree that arguing for
the sake of it is pretty pointless and it has meant that recent academic philosophy hasn't progressed
very far.

However, things might still change in relation to the subjective and objective. I think that this
distinction may become set aside in favour of greater investigation into the nature of subjectivity and
inter-subjectivity.

However, retaining the distinction, the subjective may be understood as opinion rather than
knowledge. If truth is understood as logical truth then it is difficult for a philosopher to disagree with it
and there can be conclusions. A philosopher would be forced to change his opinion if faced with
anything undeniable. On the other hand, if objective truth is the supposed fact of the matter, for
example that material objects exist, then it is possible for philosophers to deny it — on logical
grounds. If we just give up the idea of objectivity in favour of inter-subjectivity, then we can aim to find
things we agree upon, such as that material objects exist and there is such a thing as morality and
this is not to do away with philosophical investigation, but to take a subjective, phenomenological
approach rather than a logical one. In the light of my recent answers on personal identity, it seems
that this is one area in which a different approach would be of benefit.

Rachel Browne