It is a great loss, because the original terms are nowhere to be seen. So if someone wants to read, say, non-amateur writing on the idea and its history, they’re out of luck.
I sorta agree—I guess it depends on how valuable it is to be able to read Philosophy; some (Lukeprog, Eliezer) seem to consider it mostly a waste of time, others don’t, and I’m not really qualified to tell.
We’re talking here specifically about the amateur philosophy, presented with neologisms as if it’s original thought, when it simply isn’t. You seem to be saying that it’s valuable if EY writes about it but not if professional philosophers do—surely that’s not what you mean?
It is a great loss, because the original terms are nowhere to be seen. So if someone wants to read, say, non-amateur writing on the idea and its history, they’re out of luck.
I sorta agree—I guess it depends on how valuable it is to be able to read Philosophy; some (Lukeprog, Eliezer) seem to consider it mostly a waste of time, others don’t, and I’m not really qualified to tell.
We’re talking here specifically about the amateur philosophy, presented with neologisms as if it’s original thought, when it simply isn’t. You seem to be saying that it’s valuable if EY writes about it but not if professional philosophers do—surely that’s not what you mean?