> It's essentially the same argument as "everything is philosophy" or "everything is politics", technically true but only in a vacuous sense. I'm not convinced

> It's essentially the same argument as "everything is philosophy" or "everything is politics", technically true but only in a vacuous sense. I'm not convinced that we need to reach for the everything-is-philosophy hammer in order to make a reasonable case that we are doing philosophy when we argue that, for example: > Words like 'truth', 'beauty', 'justice' are vague, imprecise meshes of meaning, so much that making precise statements about them is extremely problematic even conceptually.