I think your main issue is with those who do analytical philosophy. When posed 'twice two makes four', "analytical philosophers" will not directly agree or disagree, instead they raise more questions like what do you mean by 'twice', by 'two', by 'makes' and by 'four' before they finally agree or disagree or even derailed leaving all questions unanswered.

It's unfair to dismiss them altogether, because being anal is important to achieve profound understanding of a subject. But it happens many times that focusing too much on a tree, you'll miss out the whole forest. But I note that given that there's no restriction of time and resources, there's nothing wrong in studying the forest tree by tree.

It is also often the case that some are eager to win arguments because there is the belief that truth is truth, it is irrefutable. Therefore winning an argument implies you are holding the truth -- a hasty conclusion. I guess that's why people say that wisdom comes with age. Young people are hasty. That must be the case. (Notice the irony ).

Mmm. Philosophy itself is not a method of thinking, instead it's a field that proposes various ways of thinking for various fields. And perhaps instead of asking "are they really philosophers?", the more accurate question is "is he/she a good philosopher?" or "how good they are in philosophy?". The first question can be a simple "yes" or "no", and it is often a "yes", because while philosophy is the "love for wisdom", therefore anyone with this love, is a philosopher. Now comes the real question how good someone is at it, why do I accept his or her philosophy over what's proposed by Wittgenstein, for example.

But all in all, I agree that the term "philosopher" is loosely defined.

Negation of negation is also not so much a rule rather then it is a method. The rule is within the method. A simple one, quite self-explanatory. Say you propose that negation of negation is a rule. I negate with, no, it is not a rule. The negation of negation would then be, no, it is not not a rule. This renders us both to go back to square one. It brought to question was I right to negate, or were you right to negate my negation?

Why negate the negation when we can simply insist on our initial position? We negate the negation when our opponent has proven our position faulty, but we are also not convinced by what he's bringing to the table in support of his negation. Either one argument survive or it ends up in a stalemate.

Plausible reason would be the costs outweighs the benefits.

Or it could be that improving the issue will not get me laid.

Thanks to you too. Good thread.

lol@video. I'm gonna find time to watch it. XD

Also, yeah as you said. To give up on it totally is a shame. So the alternatives are to let those who really have NBTD do it, or just we do it as we go.

This post has been edited by Sukebe: Jan 28 2010, 12:22 PM