You’re a philosopher. And philosophers are interested in many things. They have tools. Logic. Knowledge. Language.
Now, I’m a philosopher interested mainly in three things: morality [one of us, one of them], immortality [God and religion] and the Big Questions [determinism, the nature of existence itself given the gap]
Phyllo created this thread in order to make certain accusations about the manner in which I go about pursuing these things philosophically. He called it philosophy ILP style but he means philosophy iambiguous style.
Okay I responded to his points one by one.
But: how on earth can we discuss any of these things without it all coming down to particular sets of circumstances in which we often have conflicting personal opinions about morality, religion and the Big Questions?
Sure, if there are those here who insist we must stay up in the intellectual clouds pinning down precise, technical definitions for the words we use, fine, let them. And, after having arrived at them, then they can bring them out into the world of actual human interactions.
But: Absolutely no one here is required to do so. So, I can only surmise/suspect that, given my many, many, many experiences with the objectivists among us over the years, the reactions I get from those like phyllo revolve more around the extent to which my own frame of mind disturbs them. Their concern [conscious or otherwise] that they may well themselves find their very own precious “I” [in the is/ought world of value judgments] becoming increasingly more fractured and fragmented as well.
I know this experience well because I have been there myself. Twice.