dimreepr

By tribalistic I'm assuming you mean a philosopher's tendency to cite previous philosophical thinking to bolster their arguments? A PHD is awarded to those that extend our knowledge and understanding, and there's a bloody good chance that Wittgenstein wouldn't have a clue about what a modern philosopher is talking about; but he would understand why you're wrong "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein"

You could ask for clues, which is kinda the point of cryptically; not my fault that you don't understand the language...

I do indeed, you don't understand 'the point'...

And we're back to Nietzcher and what you want to discover/believe, that's a lot of page's to end up believing in something a Mormon might...

I don't speak the languge, do you?

Maths is a more precise language, that allows the language speaker's to argue more precisely; but not all scientist's speak the language fluently enough to understand the argument. Philosophy is like mathematics in many way's, other than the likelihood of the people that don't understand the math to disagree with a simple arithmetical sum versus the people faced with a simple philosophical argument spoken in pigeon English...

Why not? All of your word's were a critique of the op, which I did in my first reply with many less word's. I was wondering if you had something for us to discuss. Bc I read very slowly and have a limited time to indulge in the practise, I thought it was a reasonable request; but if you've got nothing to add to my 1st post, then I'm glad I didn't waste my time, reading all those unnecessary word's.

It certainly gives you an excuse to not answer my question... 🙄

Essentially, it's like being free to think what you want; without an idiot savant, telling you what comma would convey more/better, better. Either way the result is the same, we eliminate the less/better, better...

Which part specifically and why?

Firstly, he isn't going to reply. But you've put a lot words into your effort and I've got a short attention span; so if you want an answer, would you be so kind as to summarise your main point, and we'll go from there. 🙂

Philosophy is about judging things objectively, digging into ones soul and eliminating our 'humanity' and the biases within, in order to evaluate the information available; in many respects it demands even more rigor, than some scientists are prepaired to pay... 😣

Great post +1, it reminds me of the vaccine argument; some science went wrong 'somehow' 'once upon a time' therefore we should suffer 'small pox' bc chicken pox isn't that bad... 🤒

Exactly <sarcasm> and the irony is the icing on the cake... 🙄

From a philosophical POV, it's your responsibility to transfer your understanding to other's via metaphor's and analogue's and etc. It's also your responsibility to defend your ideas, with arguments that are understood by your interlocutor; not just demands of correctness because you thought it. It's a difficult skill to acquire, hence the very small number of notable exponents at the highest level of talent... 😉

That doesn't make it right...

What you lack is the proficiency for making other's believe what you do... OTOH Einstein was very good at explaining his idea to virtual idiots...

What is it you think, you understand better?

What makes you think that's relevant? IOW you can rationalise an illogical argument, but it can only be an excuse...

Do you think ChatGPT understands the truth of humanity more than that of an ant? What is it that you know/understand with more certainty than an ant knows about being an ant? IOW, An AGI can have knowledge of every single action you make; but it will never understand what it feels like to be you, when you're having a wank... 😇

Well-being, is a method of accepting one's knowledge isn't enough to be useful; it's up to you to decide what you do with that knowledge...

You don't seem to understand the part knowledge plays in our understanding of the real world; metaphor is an artificial link between knowledge and understanding, it's usefulness is in order to teach those that don't understand why the knowledgeable aren't happier with what they understand...

How exactly does this further our understanding of the human mind, let alone how this relates to the mind of an ant verses a whale; your mass/talent indicator suggests a whale would dominate a human in a game of metaphorical chess.

What is empty is your cup of understanding; for instance the spiritual benefits of revenge is not about making others suffer in the physical world...

The thing about a ghost is, it can't touch the real world; so what difference does it make? I just punched you in the face with my ghostly power; how did that feel?