4 ms·

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

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.
  - neonological 6y ago
    >I did not say that I contend nothing but that I did not contend that X could be You don't have to say that you contended nothing in order to contend nothing. Simply by not contending anything and creating some random variable X and not even hinting at would X could be is equivalent to contending nothing. >Now you insist that you meant science and logic to be by implication a part of philosophy Just because "logic" is part of "religionology" doesn't mean it lends any form of credibility to it. "Religionology" is still crap as a whole even though someone decided to conveniently include "logic" as a part of it. It's the same with philosophy. The whole thing is illegitimate as a whole and "logic" conveniently being part of it doesn't change that the fact that overall philosophy is akin to psuedo science. You can't even say Scientology is completely wrong. There has got to be moral tenants even in Scientology that are correct. But none of these things allows Scientology to be even remotely legitimate. >by popular convention That's your type class? So Philosophy is the study of anything that is "popular." That's weak. So anything we humans find as popular is now philosophy. The relevance of my argument is that Scientology has popularity. Creationism has popularity. Anime has popularity. There is no legitimate academic field on earth that just picks and chooses what to think about based purely on popularity. And this is precisely where the problem lies. Because all the fields of study in philosophy are chosen by "popularity" or aka "arbitrarily" you get these strange lumps of studies that have nothing to do with each other. How does logic have anything to do with aesthetics? Why call both of these things "philosophy" Popular convention is essentially the same as anything goes. So Philosophy is essentially a mishmash of deep thoughts of whatever people deem popular. This is the conclusion given by your own rationale. >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. Yes. There is a much more narrow set of demands within any field of expertise. If I'm an aerospace engineer it means building machines related to flight, not building machines related to what's popular convention. What other field on earth is basically the study of the meaning of X where X anything that is "popular convention"? Literally that's like the broadest definition ever. Comes close to the study of "everything" which is essentially the most pointless field of study.

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.
- neonological 6y ago
  >I did not say that I contend nothing but that I did not contend that X could be You don't have to say that you contended nothing in order to contend nothing. Simply by not contending anything and creating some random variable X and not even hinting at would X could be is equivalent to contending nothing. >Now you insist that you meant science and logic to be by implication a part of philosophy Just because "logic" is part of "religionology" doesn't mean it lends any form of credibility to it. "Religionology" is still crap as a whole even though someone decided to conveniently include "logic" as a part of it. It's the same with philosophy. The whole thing is illegitimate as a whole and "logic" conveniently being part of it doesn't change that the fact that overall philosophy is akin to psuedo science. You can't even say Scientology is completely wrong. There has got to be moral tenants even in Scientology that are correct. But none of these things allows Scientology to be even remotely legitimate. >by popular convention That's your type class? So Philosophy is the study of anything that is "popular." That's weak. So anything we humans find as popular is now philosophy. The relevance of my argument is that Scientology has popularity. Creationism has popularity. Anime has popularity. There is no legitimate academic field on earth that just picks and chooses what to think about based purely on popularity. And this is precisely where the problem lies. Because all the fields of study in philosophy are chosen by "popularity" or aka "arbitrarily" you get these strange lumps of studies that have nothing to do with each other. How does logic have anything to do with aesthetics? Why call both of these things "philosophy" Popular convention is essentially the same as anything goes. So Philosophy is essentially a mishmash of deep thoughts of whatever people deem popular. This is the conclusion given by your own rationale. >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. Yes. There is a much more narrow set of demands within any field of expertise. If I'm an aerospace engineer it means building machines related to flight, not building machines related to what's popular convention. What other field on earth is basically the study of the meaning of X where X anything that is "popular convention"? Literally that's like the broadest definition ever. Comes close to the study of "everything" which is essentially the most pointless field of study.