This framework helps to clear the standard confusion in some philosophical questions, typically the ones phrased with such words as ‘real’, ‘non-real’ ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’.
If you are talking about mainstream, professional philosophy, then , no, because it’s very basic in that context. If you are talking about the average person then, yes, it’s a very useful first step.
(Mainstream philosophers may not use the exact words, but that is of little significance).
Are questions regarding reality of some phenomena, for instance morality and mathematical objects continue to be open problems for mainstream, professional philosophy? If so, seems that this very basic first step can be very helpful for at least some of mainstream philosophers.
Of course there are those philosophers who understand it well, after all this idea itself was developped by philosophers.
Not to everything, no.
This framework helps to clear the standard confusion in some philosophical questions, typically the ones phrased with such words as ‘real’, ‘non-real’ ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’.
If you are talking about mainstream, professional philosophy, then , no, because it’s very basic in that context. If you are talking about the average person then, yes, it’s a very useful first step.
(Mainstream philosophers may not use the exact words, but that is of little significance).
Are questions regarding reality of some phenomena, for instance morality and mathematical objects continue to be open problems for mainstream, professional philosophy? If so, seems that this very basic first step can be very helpful for at least some of mainstream philosophers.
Of course there are those philosophers who understand it well, after all this idea itself was developped by philosophers.