3 ms·
It's right there on the top: "It is evident from the title that this is a philosophical discussion". In case you aren't interested in philosophy, I don't see wh
by nandemo 16y ago
It's right there on the top: "It is evident from the title that this is a philosophical discussion". In case you aren't interested in philosophy, I don't see why bother reading the article and commenting on it -- unless perhaps you want to say something against doing any philosophy in the first place.
But if you are interested in philosophy, then you should know that the philosopher often starts by wondering about something that most sane people take for granted. Case in point, some people do wonder why the word "wheel" describes wheels. There are tons of papers and books about philosophy of language.
Others ask why wheels exist, what is a wheel, or whether do they really exist at all. You can only be sure that the existence of wheels is an "empirical fact" after you have examined these questions. After all, "empirical fact" is a philosophical term.
Incidentally, "6 sheep + 7 sheep = 13 sheep" is not an empirical fact.
- brg 16y agoPrefacing an article with "this is a philosophical discussion" is not an excuse to stumble through nonsense like a drunken sailor staggering home. Similarly if I preface this post with "I don't mean to be rude" only to continue to slander and defame, I've not excused my actions. Counting is defined by objects, and 13 is the sum of 6 and 7. Indeed it is an empirical fact in as much as it has a physical interpretation.