Ethics The antiphilosopher could argue that, with regard to ethics, there is only practical, ordinary reasoning. Therefore, a priori it is wrong to superimpose overarching ideas of what is good for philosophical reasons. For example, it is wrong blanketly to assume that only happiness matters, as in
utilitarianism. This is not to claim, however, that a utilitarian-like argument may not be valid in some particular case.
Continuum hypothesis Consider the
continuum hypothesis, stating that there is no set with size strictly between the size of the natural numbers and the size of the real numbers. One idea is that the set universe ought to be rich, with many sets, which leads to the continuum hypothesis being false. This richness argument, the antiphilosopher might argue, is purely philosophical, and groundless, and therefore should be dismissed; maintaining that the continuum hypothesis should be settled by mathematical arguments. In particular it could be the case that the question isn't mathematically meaningful or useful, that the hypothesis is neither true, nor false. It is then wrong to stipulate, a priori and for philosophical reasons, that the continuum hypothesis is true or false.
Scientism Scientism, as a doctrinal position in that
science is the only way to know the reality, is continuously confronting the utility and validity of philosophy methods, adopting an anti-philosophical position. Authors like
Sam Harris believe that science can, or will, answer questions about morality and ethics, making philosophy useless. In line to
Comte's
Law of three stages, scientists conclude philosophy is a discipline of plausible answers, but that fails by not verifying their postulates with physical reality, which must necessarily conclude that it is science, for its
categorical imperative to respond only through accessible and universal responses to rational-sensitive experience, a stage of knowledge in line with material existence, if not the only one. ==Antiphilosophies==