My claim is justified because we make the conditions of the claim.
The circle is transcendental, according to the meaning of"transcendental", when it is a foundatiom fot a syntax. a syntax like mathematics.
explain fully all chemistry to the deepest reaction
[quote="Only_Humean) You’re saying two different things here, one right and one wrong.
Philosophy of history isn’t history. The subject matter of the philosophy of history is history, though. That is what the “of history” bit means.
I thought you could give to cultured satisfaction the answer to any question? Failed already. 
[/quote]
No, I think my examples were fine. The subject matter of the “philosophy of history” is philosophy, and not history.
That’s not an argument, that’s just restating what you said. Can’t you be bothered to at least try?
The subject of “history of philosophy” is philosophy. It’s an historical perspective on philosophy.
The subject of “philosophy of history” is history. It’s the philosophical justifications and methodologies of history. Unless you’re unsure what “subject matter” means, I don’t see why you should maintain otherwise.
I can’t disagree that does help for a better understanding.
Im kinda starting to think everything should start with “PHILOSOPHY OF” or it already does and normal people and or philosophers know this already. So are singularity, dualism and transcendental philosophy the same?
so what your saying is that philosophy deals with the whole of knowledge rather than compartmentalize these subjects into seperate ologies
he’s not saying anything. it doesn’t matter. everything he’s ever posted has either been incorrect or irrelevant.
What does that even mean? Can you actually communicate your justification(s) to me, or only tell me why you think your claim ought to seem justified?
It is presumed as an umbrella term. By now “Philosophy” is not defined by the subject matter, but the methodology by which we approach it (that is where you find distinction like transcendental idealism, existentialism, objectivism, etc. All of reality (existence, nature, the human condition, etc.) is the subject matter; the difference lies in how those notions are interpreted.
“Math” is an umbrella term in the same sense, for instance. We wouldn’t say “MATH OF SHAPES, LINES, AND PLANES”, because we’ve termed it “Geometry.” Geometry still deals with the relation of numbers and their values, but is distinct in it’s focus and methodology.
I’m admittedly starting to lean this way. John, did I give you too much credit in my initial interpretation of the OP? If you’re trying to make a point, I suggest you make it already. A Maieutic style is only as effective as your questions and replies are comprehensible (…to anyone).
AH yes the umbrella of “subject matter”, well said. So I’m sure everyone has thought of this, can I say “we are doing the philosophy on the philosophy of the perfect methodology for understanding subject matter”? I’m sure we aren’t here to waste anybody’s time. I guess i don’t help by fueling this thread! 
I say materialism.
This might be the first video Ive tried to post. Hope this is legal and how you do it. Its all information anyhow and should be free IMHO 