Now, when I listen to a mainstream philosophical argument, I don’t feel humbled at all (with one or two exceptions), instead I want to scream “why are you arguing about definitions?
Becuase phils. deal with abstract concepts, not things you can point at, and because many phil. problems are caused by inconsistent definitions, as in the when-a-tree falls problem.
Especially the definitions you didn’t even bother formalizing?!?!”
Phils can and do stipulate.
or “why do you rely on a premise you find “intuitive” or “obvious”, given that it’s rather not obvious to others?”
Are there fields where people don’t rely on intuitions?
or “why do you gleefully strawman someone else’s argument instead of trying to salvage it?”.
Becuase phils. deal with abstract concepts, not things you can point at, and because many phil. problems are caused by inconsistent definitions, as in the when-a-tree falls problem.
Phils can and do stipulate.
Are there fields where people don’t rely on intuitions?
Maybe they can’t see how.