Difference between revisions of "Fallacies Of Philosophy"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
[http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/delong-smackdown-watch-lexicographic-preferences.html Brad DeLong] | [http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/delong-smackdown-watch-lexicographic-preferences.html Brad DeLong] | ||
| − | ; Presuming that | + | ; Presuming that clear and sharp categories can be used as a starting point. |
| − | : In Jorge Luis Borges essay "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins", there is a [[wikipedia:Those_that_belong_to_the_Emperor|classification of animals from an apocryphal Chinese encyclopedia]]. The categories include: | + | : There is a science of categorization called cladistics, but philosophers generally seem ignorant of it. |
| + | |||
| + | In Jorge Luis Borges essay "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins", there is a [[wikipedia:Those_that_belong_to_the_Emperor|classification of animals from an apocryphal Chinese encyclopedia]]. The categories include: | ||
# those that belong to the Emperor, | # those that belong to the Emperor, | ||
# embalmed ones, | # embalmed ones, | ||
| Line 47: | Line 49: | ||
That's how I view most philosophical ideas such as truth, justice, good, evil, etc. While you can study the relationships between such ideas endlessly, as you can the relationships between the Chinese categories, you do not have much hope of getting to the root explanations, as we have in biology, because the unifying basis is not obvious in these far descended ideas. Starting with such ideas is a pretty clear [[wikipedia:Skyhook_(concept)#Skyhooks_and_cranes|skyhook]]. These ideas need to be explained from much simpler, preferably positivist ideas rooted in evolution, anthropology, game theory, etc. | That's how I view most philosophical ideas such as truth, justice, good, evil, etc. While you can study the relationships between such ideas endlessly, as you can the relationships between the Chinese categories, you do not have much hope of getting to the root explanations, as we have in biology, because the unifying basis is not obvious in these far descended ideas. Starting with such ideas is a pretty clear [[wikipedia:Skyhook_(concept)#Skyhooks_and_cranes|skyhook]]. These ideas need to be explained from much simpler, preferably positivist ideas rooted in evolution, anthropology, game theory, etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The science of cladistics bases classifications on shared, derived characteristics. Philosophers | ||
| + | |||
| + | ; Fallacy of hidden assumption of an object. | ||
| + | : "I have a right." Against whom? (much more to put here.) | ||
"[...] it takes a philosopher to catch a philosopher." David Stove | "[...] it takes a philosopher to catch a philosopher." David Stove | ||
"Philosophy, take it by and large, has in fact been simply the anthropocentrism of the educated and intelligent, as religion is the anthropocentrism of the others." David Stove | "Philosophy, take it by and large, has in fact been simply the anthropocentrism of the educated and intelligent, as religion is the anthropocentrism of the others." David Stove | ||
