Another thing which I wasn’t sure how to fit in with the above. I framed the neglect of your “philosophizing” cognitive style as being an error on the world’s part, but in some cases I think this style might ultimately be worse at getting things done, even on its own terms.
Like with UDT or metaphilosophy my reaction is “yes we have now reached a logical terminus of the philosophizing process, it’s not clear how to make further progress, so we should go back and engage with the details of the world in the hope that some of them illuminate our philosophical questions”. As a historical example, consider that probability theory and computability theory arose from practical engagement with games of chance and calculations, but they seem to be pretty relevant to philosophical questions(well, to certain schools of thought anyway). More progress was perhaps made in this way than could’ve been made by people just trying to do philosophy on its own.
Another thing which I wasn’t sure how to fit in with the above. I framed the neglect of your “philosophizing” cognitive style as being an error on the world’s part, but in some cases I think this style might ultimately be worse at getting things done, even on its own terms.
Like with UDT or metaphilosophy my reaction is “yes we have now reached a logical terminus of the philosophizing process, it’s not clear how to make further progress, so we should go back and engage with the details of the world in the hope that some of them illuminate our philosophical questions”. As a historical example, consider that probability theory and computability theory arose from practical engagement with games of chance and calculations, but they seem to be pretty relevant to philosophical questions(well, to certain schools of thought anyway). More progress was perhaps made in this way than could’ve been made by people just trying to do philosophy on its own.