>> Stating "there is no way to refute or evaluate philosophy" while then going on to do the same seems incongruent. >> Language vs. meta-language. > I do not

>> Stating "there is no way to refute or evaluate philosophy" while then going on to do the same seems incongruent. >> Language vs. meta-language. > I do not understand what this is supposed to mean or demonstrate. I believe the intended meaning is that there is a difference between statements within philosophy and statements about philosophy. Here's an example of a statement within philosophy: A) Every beginning is in time, and every limit of extension in space. Here's an example of a statement about philosophy: B) Statement A, along with the rest of metaphysics, is meaningless. On the surface, this critique looks promising if you're a scientifically-minded person who doesn't want a bunch of philosophical bullshit in their worldview. But the problem is: if statement B isn't philosophy, then what exactly is it?