> What I'm arguing is that dismissing these philosophical problems as just nonesense rooted in the vagueness of language is missing the point. Oh, I agree, I d

> What I'm arguing is that dismissing these philosophical problems as just nonesense rooted in the vagueness of language is missing the point. Oh, I agree, I don't think they are nonsense at all, and they do force us to think about the way we communicate and so on. That's why I call them the Schrodinger's Cat of philosophy, while they only exist until you decide to solve them, they do force us to think about how we view the world. But then you end up in another problem for philosophy: if what remains after you remove all the natural sciences is just the problems that humans create due to language, law, understanding, etc. and all of those are covered in subject-specific human sciences (law, linguistics, psychology, behavioral economics, etc.), what is left for philosophy? Apparently, this is covered partially by this week's NPR Philosophy Talk: https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/does-science-over-reach https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/does-science-over-reach