That was utterly irrelevant in context. The comment you were responding to was praise of current methods in philosophical pedagogy, and you don’t seem to be disagreeing with it. You were alluding to a tangential point—I don’t know why you would expect anyone to know what you were thinking.
The question in reply is to how it not being science or religion has do to with putting opinions straightforwardly to undergraduates. How are they connected?
It helps understanding why about 99% of the criticism of philsophy on LW is misbegoten.
That was utterly irrelevant in context. The comment you were responding to was praise of current methods in philosophical pedagogy, and you don’t seem to be disagreeing with it. You were alluding to a tangential point—I don’t know why you would expect anyone to know what you were thinking.
The question in reply is to how it not being science or religion has do to with putting opinions straightforwardly to undergraduates. How are they connected?