If you say you use the word 'truth' to describe things which have been established to be true by evidence and to describe things which have not been established to be true by evidence, I can only ask you to consider not doing so, particularly with post-truth problem going on.
I think philosophy does a lot of things. The question here is does *your* philosophy work on evidence which is actually evident. If it does, great. If not, I would rather you did it elsewhere.
-
-
"Philosophy does a lot of things" definitely counts as vague.
-
Yes, I'll openly admit I have no wish to get into all the forms of philosophy and what they do. This does not interest me. If you have no wish to get into what you mean by 'evidence which is not scientific' and that does not interest you, I'll move on.
-
I didn't say anything about "all the forms" but OK.
-
No, I did. To not be vague about what philosophy does, that is what I'd have to do. You're clearly not going to say anything, It's all red herrings, diversions and vagueness on a topic you chose to (fail to) engage with. Why waste my time? You could have just not responded.
-
I can't mute you without unfollowing so I'll have to do that. I bear you no ill will tho and you're very welcome to keep following me. I just don't want to waste time on this kind of waffle again. I need to mute a lot now to keep using Twitter or I just get bogged down like this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.