I don’t class that as a problem that is discussed by professional philosophers. It’s more of a toy question that introduces the nature of phil. problems—and the importance of asking “it depends on what you mean...”—to laypeople.
It’s not an example that lends much credence to the idea that all problems can be solved that way, even apart from the generalisation-from-one-example issue.
I’m not claiming it proves anything, and I’m not taking sides in this discussion. Someone asked for an example of something—something which varies from person to person depending on whether they’ve dissolved the relevant confusions—and I provided what I thought was the best example. It is not intended to prove anyone’s point; arguments are not soldiers.
It wasn’t an argument at all. That you chose to interpret it as an enemy soldier is your mistake, not mine. It’s not a weak soldier, it’s a … medic or something.
I don’t class that as a problem that is discussed by professional philosophers. It’s more of a toy question that introduces the nature of phil. problems—and the importance of asking “it depends on what you mean...”—to laypeople.
I agree, but that’s not what I was aiming for. It’s an example of obviousness after the fact, not philosophers being wrong/indecisive.
It’s not an example that lends much credence to the idea that all problems can be solved that way, even apart from the generalisation-from-one-example issue.
I’m not claiming it proves anything, and I’m not taking sides in this discussion. Someone asked for an example of something—something which varies from person to person depending on whether they’ve dissolved the relevant confusions—and I provided what I thought was the best example. It is not intended to prove anyone’s point; arguments are not soldiers.
The counterargument to “arguments are not soldiers” is “a point should have a point”.
It wasn’t an argument at all. That you chose to interpret it as an enemy soldier is your mistake, not mine. It’s not a weak soldier, it’s a … medic or something.