The Puzzle of Philosophical Testimony and the Place of Understanding in Philosophy

Abstract This paper addresses the question of how to account for the distinctive way in which, as a matter of fact, we react to philosophical disagreement and, more generally, to philosophical testimony. The paper explains how exactly the idea that understanding occupies a central place in philosophy can account for this. It examines two interpretations of this idea and argues that the second, but not the first, can solve the so‐called puzzle of philosophical testimony. This second interpretation turns out to be compatible with the idea that philosophy aims at finding out or knowing substantive philosophical truths rather than at understanding them. The paper then turns to the question of whether this central place means that philosophy is not a collective discipline .