3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - neonological 6y ago
    >(which I did not contend) By contending nothing (YOU) imply anything. You need to type class your variable, otherwise it's assumed to be of type Any. >That is indeed my point when claiming that you contradict yourself. I believe your criticism would benefit from nuance. The nuance is just missed by you. I did address this. Multiple times. My initial post did mention that science and logic arose out of philosophy (and by implication is a part of it). The failure in this case is technically not on me, it's on your usage of the argument. >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. And my claim, which you don't agree with, is that aesthetics is just like the rock when compared to philosophy of science. That is the category error. If you can lump science with religion then you can lump it with rocks too. If you claim X is not anything that can possibly exist. Then type class X for me. What is it? Formalize your claim. Because by not type classing X you've basically said anything goes or you have not said anything meaningful at all. It's equivalent to saying "My argument is X" and then not defining it. This is the essence of the argument. My claim is basically X is typed really poorly and arbitrarily with little formalism let alone sense.

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.
- neonological 6y ago
  >(which I did not contend) By contending nothing (YOU) imply anything. You need to type class your variable, otherwise it's assumed to be of type Any. >That is indeed my point when claiming that you contradict yourself. I believe your criticism would benefit from nuance. The nuance is just missed by you. I did address this. Multiple times. My initial post did mention that science and logic arose out of philosophy (and by implication is a part of it). The failure in this case is technically not on me, it's on your usage of the argument. >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. And my claim, which you don't agree with, is that aesthetics is just like the rock when compared to philosophy of science. That is the category error. If you can lump science with religion then you can lump it with rocks too. If you claim X is not anything that can possibly exist. Then type class X for me. What is it? Formalize your claim. Because by not type classing X you've basically said anything goes or you have not said anything meaningful at all. It's equivalent to saying "My argument is X" and then not defining it. This is the essence of the argument. My claim is basically X is typed really poorly and arbitrarily with little formalism let alone sense.