Presumably its the place where questions that can’t readily be answered, (or even formulated, .or may not even really be questions), live. A sin bin. The only realistic alternative is sweeping them under the carpet, since the idea of all questions automagically being answerable is a nirvana.
Philosophy is the best thing there is at being philosophy. Its worse at answering its in questions than other fields are at answering their own questions, but its questions are harder,. It isnt broken in the sense that there is any easy way of fixing it, or a comparable alternative doing the same job,
It is very important for rationality to notice the differences between
1 Inferior compared to a real , comparable thing
2 Inferior compared to unmplemented but realistic alternatives.
The system for generating new fields of research? After all, if it generates other areas that are no longer philosophy reasonably regularly, then that actually creates value.
Does it (still) do so, though? I’m aware that most of what is now science used to be called “natural philosophy”, but nowadays it doesn’t really seem like there’s anything left.
Is it a system for generating new fields of research, or is it just a catch-all bin where all the nebulous, hazy, and vague things are kept until they firm up enough to become fields of research?
Then what is philosophy supposed to be? Just a field for asking questions (but not answering them)?
Presumably its the place where questions that can’t readily be answered, (or even formulated, .or may not even really be questions), live. A sin bin. The only realistic alternative is sweeping them under the carpet, since the idea of all questions automagically being answerable is a nirvana.
Philosophy is the best thing there is at being philosophy. Its worse at answering its in questions than other fields are at answering their own questions, but its questions are harder,. It isnt broken in the sense that there is any easy way of fixing it, or a comparable alternative doing the same job,
It is very important for rationality to notice the differences between
1 Inferior compared to a real , comparable thing
2 Inferior compared to unmplemented but realistic alternatives.
3 Inferior compared to nirvanas.
The system for generating new fields of research? After all, if it generates other areas that are no longer philosophy reasonably regularly, then that actually creates value.
Does it (still) do so, though? I’m aware that most of what is now science used to be called “natural philosophy”, but nowadays it doesn’t really seem like there’s anything left.
Is it a system for generating new fields of research, or is it just a catch-all bin where all the nebulous, hazy, and vague things are kept until they firm up enough to become fields of research?