I meant to improve it. Once we know what philosophers are trying to learn, we can try to find better methods to achieve the same.
Is that a fact? What’s your track record?
By the fact that it works, where works defined as getting goals reached
If you could cash out the working thing in a rigorous way, you would be in to something. But the world has long been full of STEM types who can announce the two word version of “it works”....that does not change anything.
Of course, so far philosophy is highly unsucessful at settling any question, only negatively (i.e. something is probably not true), but this is where I think it could be helped if we define it as the discipline for looking for the less-conscious algorithms in the human mind.
But that is what psychology does,. Philosophers are interested in justice because they want just societies....they want improved versions of things.
Is that a fact? What’s your track record?
If you could cash out the working thing in a rigorous way, you would be in to something. But the world has long been full of STEM types who can announce the two word version of “it works”....that does not change anything.
But that is what psychology does,. Philosophers are interested in justice because they want just societies....they want improved versions of things.
We, not me.
That is step 2. Once we get an algorithm that reliably predicts our feelings about justice, we can codify it into law.
“Your” can be plural.
Once we understand the principles behind things, we may accept contradictions to our feelings.