Triskaidek's page

What i see is the exact opposite. People feel their way to a position and then reach for any bit of philosophy that supports that position and reject anything that urges them away from it.

My personal view mirrors this sentiment quite a bit. I think most people are irrational first and then rational second (if at all). (btw, this is also my view of scientists, to not stray too far from the original post).

A friend of mine used to say, when most people say they're thinking all they're doing is rearranging their prejudices.

So, let's grant your premise. People are using philosophy and philosophical concepts to motivate their original position (whether or not that position is irrational or rational and whether or not that position is ultimately self-serving). Doesn't providing a rational basis for a position add to the dialogue? Isn't it better to be motivated by reason than by manipulators such as ad hominem or tu quoque? I know that I'd rather hear an issue debated (for instance, do the rich pay too much / too little taxes) on its merits and on a discussion of what is good for people rather than on, "Well most of the population pays no taxes". So even if the philosophy comes in a posteriori isn't it better than having no reason, no rationality, at all?