I’m not saying that my assessment of it is inarguably correct (indeed, given that mainstream philosophy isn’t seriously discredited yet, reasonable people clearly can disagree), but if your conclusions are different, I’d like to know why.
It’s mainly because when I’m (seemingly) making philosophical progress myself, e.g., this and this, or when I see other people making apparent philosophical progress, it looks more like “doing what most philosophers do” than “getting feedback from reality”.
Humanity has been collectively trying to solve some philosophical problems for hundreds or even thousands of years, without arriving at final solutions.
Instead of using philosophy to solve individual scientific problems (natural philosophy) we use it to solve science as a methodological problem (philosophy of science).
But humans seemingly do have indexical values, so what to do about that?
But humans don’t have this, so how are humans supposed to reason about such correlations?
I would categorize this as incorporating feedback from reality, so perhaps we don’t really disagree much.
It’s mainly because when I’m (seemingly) making philosophical progress myself, e.g., this and this, or when I see other people making apparent philosophical progress, it looks more like “doing what most philosophers do” than “getting feedback from reality”.
I would categorize this as incorporating feedback from reality, so perhaps we don’t really disagree much.