Inasmuch as philosophical issues are settled, they stop getting talked about.
Why exactly? I mean, there is no controversy in mathematics about whether 2+2=4, and yet we continue teaching this knowledge in schools. Uncontroversial, yet necessary to be taught, because humans don’t get it automatically, and because it is necessary for more complicated calculations.
Why exactly don’t philosophers do an equivalent of this? It is because once a topic has been settled at a philosophical conference, the next generations of humans are automatically born with this knowledge? Or at least the answer is published so widely, that it becomes more known than the knowledge of 2+2=4? Or what?
Start tabooing the word ‘philosophy.’ See how it goes.
First approximation: Pretended ability to make specific conclusions concerning ill-defined but high-status topics. :(
I mean, there is no controversy in mathematics about whether 2+2=4, and yet we continue teaching this knowledge in schools.
Yes, and we continue teaching modus ponens and proof by reductio in philosophy classrooms. (Not to mention historical facts about philosophy.) Here we’re changing the subject from ‘do issues keep getting talked about equally after they’re settled?’ to ‘do useful facts get taught in class?’ The philosopher certainly has plenty of simple equations to appeal to. But the mathematician also has foundational controversies, both settled and open.
Pretended ability to make specific conclusions concerning ill-defined but high-status topics. :(
So if I pretend to be able to make specific conclusions about capital in macroeconomics, I’m doing philosophy?
Why exactly? I mean, there is no controversy in mathematics about whether 2+2=4, and yet we continue teaching this knowledge in schools. Uncontroversial, yet necessary to be taught, because humans don’t get it automatically, and because it is necessary for more complicated calculations.
Why exactly don’t philosophers do an equivalent of this? It is because once a topic has been settled at a philosophical conference, the next generations of humans are automatically born with this knowledge? Or at least the answer is published so widely, that it becomes more known than the knowledge of 2+2=4? Or what?
First approximation: Pretended ability to make specific conclusions concerning ill-defined but high-status topics. :(
Yes, and we continue teaching modus ponens and proof by reductio in philosophy classrooms. (Not to mention historical facts about philosophy.) Here we’re changing the subject from ‘do issues keep getting talked about equally after they’re settled?’ to ‘do useful facts get taught in class?’ The philosopher certainly has plenty of simple equations to appeal to. But the mathematician also has foundational controversies, both settled and open.
So if I pretend to be able to make specific conclusions about capital in macroeconomics, I’m doing philosophy?