Philosophical orientation:
Why so many discussions fail and how to make them fruitful
Philosophical, scientific and political discussions often seem astonishingly unproductive. Arguments clash, conversations go round in circles, positions harden and, in the end, no one feels they have made any progress. This pattern is so common that one could almost call it a fundamental structure of human communication.
The cause of this is rarely a lack of intelligence or knowledge.Most discussions fail for another, much more fundamental reason:
90% of all conversations remain fruitless because everyone involved believes they are starting from the same premises, even though they are speaking from completely different frames of reference.
This essay attempts to reveal these often hidden frameworks.
The fundamental question of every philosophy: Which school of thought is being addressed?
Before arguing, it can often be helpful to be aware of the metaphysical space in which one is operating. The major classical schools of thought can be roughly divided into four groups:
Realism: The world exists independently of consciousness.
Idealism: Consciousness or mind takes precedence over the world.
Materialism/physicalism: Everything that is real can be described in physical terms.
Constructivism: The world we perceive is created by our models.
These differences are so fundamental that any discussion without explicit naming often becomes confusing. Two people can talk about ‘reality’ and still mean completely different things.
2. Erkenntnistheoretische Modi: Wie entsteht überhaupt Wissen?
Knowledge does not arise in just one way. There are different modes of cognition:
– empirical (through observation)
– rational (through thinking)
– critical-rational (through falsification)
– phenomenological (through consciousness)
– hermeneutic (through interpretation)
– pragmatic (through use and function)
– model-theoretical (through structures and models)
Those who argue in an empirical mode expect data.
Those who argue in a phenomenological mode expect insight into the structure of experience.
Those who think in a model-theoretical mode expect functional coherence.
If these modes are not clarified, it is not uncommon for a conversation to arise in which each side responds to something different.
Validity claim: What exactly is being discussed?
Many conflicts arise because levels are confused:
First order: statements about the world (‘space exists’, ‘consciousness is neural activity’).
Second order: statements about our descriptions of the world (‘space is a model’, ‘consciousness cannot be exhaustively neuralised’).
When level 1 and level 2 are mixed up, debates arise that only appear to be about the same subject. In fact, different levels are colliding.
Scientific or non-scientific?
Philosophical statements either fall within the realm of science
within science
– empirically verifiable
– model-based
– reconstructable
or outside the realm of science
– ontological
– speculative
– based on fundamental assumptions
Both areas are legitimate, as long as it is clear in which one one is arguing.
The greatest misunderstandings arise when scientific statements are presented as ontologies – or vice versa.
Fundamental ontological decisions: What actually exists?
Ontologies define what may be considered real:
– Substances (things)
– Processes (change)
– Information (structures, patterns)
– Relations (relationships)
– Phenomena (appearances in consciousness)
Discussions about ‘existence’ often fail because the concept of existence is assumed without justification.
Semantics and language: concepts shape what we can think
Language is not neutral. There are three basic semantic positions:
Conceptual realism: Concepts reflect the world.
Nominalism: Concepts are arbitrary labels.
Constructivist semantics: Concepts first create the structures we talk about.
The choice of this position determines whether one believes that knowledge is represented or created.
The epistemic space of possibility
A central concept for orientation is the epistemic space of possibility:
the totality of all models that consciousness can conceive.
It is like a blank sheet of paper:
– We can write an infinite amount on it.
– But we cannot write beyond the edge.
– The structure of the sheet is determined by our ways of thinking.
This space of possibility is larger than any current science.
It encompasses everything conceivable, but also everything that is (still) inexpressible.
Dogmas, paradigms and schools of thought only determine which part of this space is considered ‘real’.
Why discussions fail: The invisible framework
Most debates become fruitless because:
– Schools of thought are not clarified.
– Modes of cognition are confused.
– Levels (first order/second order) become mixed up.
– Ontological silent assumptions are not expressed.
– Scientific and non-scientific statements remain unclear.
– The scope of possibilities of different participants is not congruent.
Therefore:
‘Most discussions fail because all participants believe they are starting from the same premises – even though they are speaking from different frames of reference.’
The path to productive discussions
Fruitful discussion does not require a perfect theory, but clarity about:
- Which school of thought am I speaking from?
- What mode of cognition is involved?
- At what level am I arguing?
- What is the validity claim of my statement?
- What ontology am I assuming?
- How are my concepts constructed?
- What section of the space of possibilities am I addressing?
When these frameworks become visible, the chances of a genuine substantive debate increase.
Final thoughts
Philosophy often fails not because of a lack of arguments, but because of a lack of orientation. Those who make the framework conditions of thinking visible expand the scope of possibility for discussion. And where the scope of possibility becomes visible, insight often becomes more fruitful.
Stefan Rapp