4 ms·

> Science and logic attempt to describe something central to the universe while religion and aesthetics are central to only the human experience. To place the t

> Science and logic attempt to describe something central to the universe while religion and aesthetics are central to only the human experience. To place the two in the same box is a huge category error akin trying to scientifically derive creationism. I do not see in what respect this might be a category error. The „box“ all these things are put into is the box of things we can ask questions of the form „What do we mean when we talk about X?“ about. This is possible for religion, science, aesthetics and logic likewise. And that’s what philosophers are doing. In that sense your own post is engaging in the very philosophy you deem obsolete. Not only do you reflect on what we actually refer to when we talk about philosophy – thus engaging in metaphilosophy – your entire last paragraph is full of metaphysical and epistemological theses about the world and our knowledge of it. This is the problem of most critics who want to reject philosophy as a whole. They cannot argue for their thesis without already starting to philosophize themselves.

neonological 6y ago
Classic. Every philosopher responds with “your argument is philosophy, it’s ironic.” Sure if you classify all deep thought as philosophy then any argument against philosophy that is deep is in itself philosophy. It’s just meta games with words no point in bringing it up. Your argument basically says philosophy is an umbrella term for everything in existence. There’s no point for such a term that asks “what do we mean when we talk about x”. In fact such a term already exists without the pretentiousness. It’s called “definition” you can look up the definition of science and religion on Wikipedia. Does that make Wikipedia a philosophy web site?
- dschuessler 6y ago
  > Sure if you classify all deep thought as philosophy then any argument against philosophy that is deep is in itself philosophy. It’s just meta games with words no point in bringing it up. I did not classify all deep thought as philosophy but a very specific subset of thought: answers on questions of the form „What do we mean when we talk about X?“. Reflections on our own concepts if you will. The point of bringing it up is that as far as I can see you are taking a self-contradictory position. I agree that you can answer the question „What do we mean when we talk about X?“ with a definition. That is one way of understanding the question. Yet we judge definitions to be inappropriate when it doesn’t capture what we _actually_ mean when we talk about X (just as your rhetorical question suggests that defining Wikipedia to be a „philosophy web site“ is inappropriate). So there is obviously a second meaning to the question „What do we mean when we talk about X?“, one that is not asking for a definition of X but for our concept of X on which we judge definitions to be appropriate or inappropriate. It is this latter sense in which I consider philosophy to be concerned with that question.
  - neonological 6y ago
    X can be anything on the face of the universe. ‘What do we mean when we talk about all deep thought?” It is not a subset, it’s the set of all things that can be x. It’s really just a huge black hole whenever philosophers act smug and bring this up. Basically by placing “logic” under philosophy all logical arguments against philosophy become contradictory. Just make up a field called religionology and have logic and worshipping a cat god as it’s main tenants. Then any “logical” argument against it is part of “religionology” and therefore contradictory. Let’s all worship cats now because no logical argument can prove religionology wrong. > one that is not asking for a definition of X but for our concept of X on which we judge definitions to be appropriate or inappropriate. It’s still too broad. You can still apply this question to a rock on the ground. What do I really mean by that? Call it the philosophy of the rock and study it like I study science. Clearly there is a category error here as studying what I mean when I talk about that rock is not actually a philosophy.
    - dschuessler 6y ago
      Even if X could be "anything on the face of the universe“ (which I did not contend) it does not follow that philosophy is concerned with „the set of all things that can be x“ (which you seem to imply). I rather clearly stated that philosophy is instead concerned with the answers to questions of the form „What do we mean when we talk about X?“ Your „religionology“ argument surely has a point. The critic of religionology would have to specifically criticize the worshipping of the cat rather than religionology as a whole. So you as a critic of philosophy would likewise have to target those aspects of philosophy you don’t practice yourself in the very moment you are arguing against it. That is indeed my point when claiming that you contradict yourself. I believe your criticism would benefit from nuance. > studying what I mean when I talk about that rock is not actually a philosophy. I agree. I think the misunderstanding lies in your belief that X can be anything on the face of the universe. Not everything is equally worth asking the question what we mean when we talk about it. By popular convention, religion, science, aesthetics and logic are worth it. Philosophy therefore turns to them rather than rocks. EDIT: Rephrased first sentence.
      - 6y ago

neonological 6y ago

Classic. Every philosopher responds with “your argument is philosophy, it’s ironic.” Sure if you classify all deep thought as philosophy then any argument against philosophy that is deep is in itself philosophy. It’s just meta games with words no point in bringing it up. Your argument basically says philosophy is an umbrella term for everything in existence. There’s no point for such a term that asks “what do we mean when we talk about x”. In fact such a term already exists without the pretentiousness. It’s called “definition” you can look up the definition of science and religion on Wikipedia. Does that make Wikipedia a philosophy web site?

dschuessler 6y ago
> Sure if you classify all deep thought as philosophy then any argument against philosophy that is deep is in itself philosophy. It’s just meta games with words no point in bringing it up. I did not classify all deep thought as philosophy but a very specific subset of thought: answers on questions of the form „What do we mean when we talk about X?“. Reflections on our own concepts if you will. The point of bringing it up is that as far as I can see you are taking a self-contradictory position. I agree that you can answer the question „What do we mean when we talk about X?“ with a definition. That is one way of understanding the question. Yet we judge definitions to be inappropriate when it doesn’t capture what we _actually_ mean when we talk about X (just as your rhetorical question suggests that defining Wikipedia to be a „philosophy web site“ is inappropriate). So there is obviously a second meaning to the question „What do we mean when we talk about X?“, one that is not asking for a definition of X but for our concept of X on which we judge definitions to be appropriate or inappropriate. It is this latter sense in which I consider philosophy to be concerned with that question.
- neonological 6y ago
  X can be anything on the face of the universe. ‘What do we mean when we talk about all deep thought?” It is not a subset, it’s the set of all things that can be x. It’s really just a huge black hole whenever philosophers act smug and bring this up. Basically by placing “logic” under philosophy all logical arguments against philosophy become contradictory. Just make up a field called religionology and have logic and worshipping a cat god as it’s main tenants. Then any “logical” argument against it is part of “religionology” and therefore contradictory. Let’s all worship cats now because no logical argument can prove religionology wrong. > one that is not asking for a definition of X but for our concept of X on which we judge definitions to be appropriate or inappropriate. It’s still too broad. You can still apply this question to a rock on the ground. What do I really mean by that? Call it the philosophy of the rock and study it like I study science. Clearly there is a category error here as studying what I mean when I talk about that rock is not actually a philosophy.
  - dschuessler 6y ago
    Even if X could be "anything on the face of the universe“ (which I did not contend) it does not follow that philosophy is concerned with „the set of all things that can be x“ (which you seem to imply). I rather clearly stated that philosophy is instead concerned with the answers to questions of the form „What do we mean when we talk about X?“ Your „religionology“ argument surely has a point. The critic of religionology would have to specifically criticize the worshipping of the cat rather than religionology as a whole. So you as a critic of philosophy would likewise have to target those aspects of philosophy you don’t practice yourself in the very moment you are arguing against it. That is indeed my point when claiming that you contradict yourself. I believe your criticism would benefit from nuance. > studying what I mean when I talk about that rock is not actually a philosophy. I agree. I think the misunderstanding lies in your belief that X can be anything on the face of the universe. Not everything is equally worth asking the question what we mean when we talk about it. By popular convention, religion, science, aesthetics and logic are worth it. Philosophy therefore turns to them rather than rocks. EDIT: Rephrased first sentence.
    - 6y ago