From both this comment and especially our our thread on Post 2, I have a strong impression that you just completely misunderstand this series and everything in it. I think you have your own area of interest which you call “conceptual analysis” here, involving questions like “what is the self REALLY?”, an area which I dismiss as pointlessly arguing over definitions. Those “what is blah REALLY” questions are out-of-scope for this series.
I really feel like I pulled out all the stops to make that clear, including with boldface font (cf. §1.6.2) and multiple repetitions in multiple posts. :)
And yet you somehow seem to think that this “conceptual analysis” activity is not only part of this series, but indeed the entire point of this series! And you’re latching onto various things that I say that superficially resemble this activity, and you’re misinterpreting them as examples of that activity, when in fact they’re not.
I suggest that you should have a default assumption going forward that anything at all that you think I said in this series, you were probably misunderstanding it. :-P
It’s true that what I’m doing might superficially seem to overlap with “conceptual analysis”. For example, “conceptual analysis” involves talking about intuitions, and this series also involves talking about intuitions. There’s a good reason for that superficial overlap, and I explain that reason in §1.6.
If you can pinpoint ways that I could have written more clearly, I’m open to suggestions. :)
From both this comment and especially our our thread on Post 2, I have a strong impression that you just completely misunderstand this series and everything in it. I think you have your own area of interest which you call “conceptual analysis” here, involving questions like “what is the self REALLY?”, an area which I dismiss as pointlessly arguing over definitions. Those “what is blah REALLY” questions are out-of-scope for this series.
I really feel like I pulled out all the stops to make that clear, including with boldface font (cf. §1.6.2) and multiple repetitions in multiple posts. :)
And yet you somehow seem to think that this “conceptual analysis” activity is not only part of this series, but indeed the entire point of this series! And you’re latching onto various things that I say that superficially resemble this activity, and you’re misinterpreting them as examples of that activity, when in fact they’re not.
I suggest that you should have a default assumption going forward that anything at all that you think I said in this series, you were probably misunderstanding it. :-P
It’s true that what I’m doing might superficially seem to overlap with “conceptual analysis”. For example, “conceptual analysis” involves talking about intuitions, and this series also involves talking about intuitions. There’s a good reason for that superficial overlap, and I explain that reason in §1.6.
If you can pinpoint ways that I could have written more clearly, I’m open to suggestions. :)
Sorry, I didn’t want to come off as obnoxious. You can remove my comment if you consider it missing the point.
Oh, it’s not obnoxious! You’re engaging in good faith. :)