"Philosophy is Dead"

[user_id]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I did ask not only WHAT it represented (to see if you were even familiar with the symbolism . . . you passed) . . . I also asked about its wider SIGNIFICANCE to the field of analytic philosophy (which you did not recognize . . . epic fail).

And to say it again, the latter question is silly. What you posted is not some fundamental "formula" of philosophy, its just the symbolization of a particular assertion used in one book. Your claims about Russel's theory of descriptions is hyperbole at best, this isn't like say the theory of relativity.

Now if you want to believe that not recognizing some symbolic assertion means I don't know about analytic philosophy go for it, doesn't bother me at all. I'm far more interested in you actually justify what you claim instead of merely making assertions as if they are matters of fact.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I just get tired of dealing with the jerkwad know-it-alls judging my knowledge and that of others without even knowing who we are.

That's nice, my comment was based on what you stated here. Knowing you, is just a matter of hearing more of your comments, hopefully I don't get to know you well.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by user_id

And to say it again, the latter question is silly. What you posted is not some fundamental "formula" of philosophy, its just the symbolization of a particular assertion used in one book. Your claims about Russel's theory of descriptions is hyperbole at best, this isn't like say the theory of relativity.

Now if you want to believe that not recognizing some symbolic assertion means I don't know about analytic philosophy go for it, doesn't bother me at all. I'm far more interested in you actually justify what you claim instead of merely making assertions as if they are matters of fact.

You were condescendingly characterizing Arequipa's colloquial view of the entire discipline of philosophy (and denigrating mine) as if you were aware of the history and developmental stages it went through to become your preferred analytic philosophy. Not recognizing a pivotal development from Frege's ambiguous function argument approach in the development of logical analysis is probative, IMO. I am sure you are technically adept at what you do . . . whatever that is . . . but your condescension is neither warranted nor appreciated.

That's nice, my comment was based on what you stated here. Knowing you, is just a matter of hearing more of your comments, hopefully I don't get to know you well.

I will try to ensure that doesn't happen then.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You were condescendingly characterizing Arequipa's colloquial view of the entire discipline of philosophy (and denigrating mine) as if you were aware of the history and developmental stages it went through to become your preferred analytic philosophy. Not recognizing a pivotal development from Frege's ambiguous function argument approach in the development of logical analysis is probative

I'm well aware of the history and development of analytic philosophy, but I'm in no sense a scholar of analytic philosophy, there are undoubtedly many questions I wouldn't be able to answer off hand.

In terms of your claim about not recognizing "a pivotal development", rubbish. I didn't recognize a particular symbolic statement, that is far different that not recognizing the general development. If I actually cared about your test, I would've looked it up.

Anyhow, you're still not addressing the actual issues in this thread.