3 ms·

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 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.
  - dschuessler 6y ago
    > By contending nothing (YOU) imply anything. I did not say that I contend nothing but that I did not contend that X could be „anything on the face of the universe“. But even if I did contend nothing I certainly wouldn’t imply anything. How does contending nothing imply something? What kind of reasoning is this? > 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. You are criticizing philosophy (as a whole) as „essentially just a mish mash of deep thoughts and ponderings of unrelated topics“, „archaic“ and „just an old way of thinking“. Now you insist that you meant science and logic to be by implication a part of philosophy. So are you saying that they are archaic as well? You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t include science and logic in your criticism you should clarify which parts of philosophy you reject. That would be the nuance I am missing. > If you claim X is not anything that can possibly exist. Then type class X for me. I attempted to type class X in my last comment: X is what – by popular convention – is worth asking the question what we mean when we talk about it. So I have to concede: That could indeed be anything. But in fact it isn’t. So I’m still failing to grasp the relevance of your argument. One day you could probably ask yourself what you mean when talking about a rock and call that philosophy because it would be considered worthwhile. So what? > This is the essence of the argument. My claim is basically X is typed really poorly and arbitrarily with little formalism let alone sense. Do you have the same demands on your own area of expertise? Would you mind formalizing it non-arbitrarily? I guess that would help me understand your expectations. EDIT: Removed a remark that was due to a misunderstanding.

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.
- dschuessler 6y ago
  > By contending nothing (YOU) imply anything. I did not say that I contend nothing but that I did not contend that X could be „anything on the face of the universe“. But even if I did contend nothing I certainly wouldn’t imply anything. How does contending nothing imply something? What kind of reasoning is this? > 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. You are criticizing philosophy (as a whole) as „essentially just a mish mash of deep thoughts and ponderings of unrelated topics“, „archaic“ and „just an old way of thinking“. Now you insist that you meant science and logic to be by implication a part of philosophy. So are you saying that they are archaic as well? You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t include science and logic in your criticism you should clarify which parts of philosophy you reject. That would be the nuance I am missing. > If you claim X is not anything that can possibly exist. Then type class X for me. I attempted to type class X in my last comment: X is what – by popular convention – is worth asking the question what we mean when we talk about it. So I have to concede: That could indeed be anything. But in fact it isn’t. So I’m still failing to grasp the relevance of your argument. One day you could probably ask yourself what you mean when talking about a rock and call that philosophy because it would be considered worthwhile. So what? > This is the essence of the argument. My claim is basically X is typed really poorly and arbitrarily with little formalism let alone sense. Do you have the same demands on your own area of expertise? Would you mind formalizing it non-arbitrarily? I guess that would help me understand your expectations. EDIT: Removed a remark that was due to a misunderstanding.