I recently asked a question that I think is similar to what you’re discussing. To recap, my question was on the philosophical debate about what “knowledge” really means. I asked why anyone cares—why not just define Knowledge Type A, Knowledge Type B, etc. and be done with it? If you would taboo the word knowledge would there be anything left to discuss?
Am I correct that that’s basically what you’re referring to? Do you have any thoughts specifically regarding my question?
Maybe those people are bad at “tabooing” their topics. Which may either mean the topic is very difficult to “taboo”, or that they simply do not think this way and instead e.g. try to associate the topic with applause lights. In other words, either the “philosophical” topics are those where tabooing is difficult, or the “philosophers” are people who are bad at tabooing.
Since there are many different philosophers trying many different things, I would guess that it really is difficult to taboo those topics. (Which does not exclude the possibility that most philosophers are actually bad at tabooing; I just think it is unlikely that all of them are.)
On the other hand, maybe the philosophers who taboo the topic properly are simply ignored by the others. The problem is never solved because even when someone solves it, others do not accept the solution.
Also, even proper tabooing does not answer the question immediately. Even if you taboo “knowledge” properly, the explanation may require some knowledge about informatics or neuroscience, which may be not available yet.
On the other hand, maybe the philosophers who taboo the topic properly are simply ignored by the others. The problem is never solved because even when someone solves it, others do not accept the solution.
And if they do it stops being called “philosophy”. This happened most notably to natural philosophy.
His problem is that he isn’t clear what knowledge means in academic philosophy and he tabooed the word in his post. There’s obviously something left to discuss.
I recently asked a question that I think is similar to what you’re discussing. To recap, my question was on the philosophical debate about what “knowledge” really means. I asked why anyone cares—why not just define Knowledge Type A, Knowledge Type B, etc. and be done with it? If you would taboo the word knowledge would there be anything left to discuss?
Am I correct that that’s basically what you’re referring to? Do you have any thoughts specifically regarding my question?
Maybe those people are bad at “tabooing” their topics. Which may either mean the topic is very difficult to “taboo”, or that they simply do not think this way and instead e.g. try to associate the topic with applause lights. In other words, either the “philosophical” topics are those where tabooing is difficult, or the “philosophers” are people who are bad at tabooing.
Since there are many different philosophers trying many different things, I would guess that it really is difficult to taboo those topics. (Which does not exclude the possibility that most philosophers are actually bad at tabooing; I just think it is unlikely that all of them are.)
On the other hand, maybe the philosophers who taboo the topic properly are simply ignored by the others. The problem is never solved because even when someone solves it, others do not accept the solution.
Also, even proper tabooing does not answer the question immediately. Even if you taboo “knowledge” properly, the explanation may require some knowledge about informatics or neuroscience, which may be not available yet.
And if they do it stops being called “philosophy”. This happened most notably to natural philosophy.
His problem is that he isn’t clear what knowledge means in academic philosophy and he tabooed the word in his post. There’s obviously something left to discuss.
Yes, that is an example of what I am referring to.
Sadly, I’m afraid I can’t give you any other thoughts that what I have said for the general case, since I know little epistemology.