This is a tangent, but sometimes I can’t help myself.
Be wary of any idea which defines itself by what it’s not.
I agree, but I think not for the reasons I’m inferring you have based on the surrounding context of this sentence.
Every idea is defined both in terms of what it is and what it’s not. To have an idea and define it is to say it’s something rather than not something else, since every category draws a boundary of what’s inside or outside (other than some concept where you want to point to the absolute, no-thinginess of being). This is a technical point, sure, but it weakens your argument in my mind because this is true of every idea, so your argument seems one in full generality opposed to making distinctions.
I’m actually on board with this in some contexts, but I’m guessing it’s not what you mean to say here.
This is a tangent, but sometimes I can’t help myself.
I agree, but I think not for the reasons I’m inferring you have based on the surrounding context of this sentence.
Every idea is defined both in terms of what it is and what it’s not. To have an idea and define it is to say it’s something rather than not something else, since every category draws a boundary of what’s inside or outside (other than some concept where you want to point to the absolute, no-thinginess of being). This is a technical point, sure, but it weakens your argument in my mind because this is true of every idea, so your argument seems one in full generality opposed to making distinctions.
I’m actually on board with this in some contexts, but I’m guessing it’s not what you mean to say here.