[ Note: I am not finished with my studies of philosophy and may thus be partially ignorant. ] But, I have had some repeated impressions, and I have yet to see any "non-violators" (see qualitative characterizations, below -- qualitative characterizations for the qualitative characterizers). AND YET, I do have what I see as a good "out" for some (so they are not "guilty" of the negative characterizations). Let's begin:
What is wrong with Philosophy/Philosophers? There is something 'wrong', right?
Do philosophers always [secretly or unknowingly]: either have some "ax to grind" and/OR do they "trip over" things and try to "grind everything into axes"?
There does seem to be something wrong with their always-partial (
Hi,
How otherwise they will be called "philosophers " ? They usually try to reach spheres beyond what could be proven.
Dear Avishag Gordon
In a notable (and "ok") way I could agree with your characterization. But, what I was hoping to indicate was how they go "beyond"/outside what they are really prepared to talk about (themselves). They seem to lack a way to monitor the boundaries of the Subjects to which their views apply (or to which they apply their views). This is what I have tried to offer: a way to do that.
My most recent Answer to the following question and what references there are for it, may make the position clearer: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_is_the_most_relevant_philosopher_of_the_20th_century_worldwide?view=5ae083651a5e769d35605ee2 (this "last Answer" to this [other] Question posted about 9 am, 04/25 (mountain time)).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science