Your point in the second paragraph is an instance of the straw man fallacy. I never argued otherwise. So why do you keep making a point 'as if'it contradicts something I argued? Loads of philosophers gained inspiration from going for walks. That doesn't mean walking is philosophy or that philosophy is a kind of walking.
I am talking about philosophy. Not what inspires philosophers. But philosophy.

Asfm for your first, it doesn't make sense to draw those distinctions and you saying otherwise is question begging in this context. Argue a case. That is, address the OP, rather than just insist it is false.

Why do you think I am manifesting the Dunning Kruger effect?

You think my arguments are shite, right? Okay, fine. But what expertise do you have? Because that's really important in determining who is manifesting the Dunning-Kruger effect, right?

Would you agree, for instance, that if I am an expert and you are not, then the fact you think virtualy everything - heck, everything - I say is shite, indeed just 'trolling'- would be good evidence that you are the one manifesting the effect?

Why do you keep conflating subjectivism with realism?

Subjectivism in metaethics is the view that moral statements are truth apt and their truth makers are subjective states.

You can be a subjectivist and believe no moral statement is true. (For instance, one might believe that the relevant subjective states simply do not exist; for an analogy, subjectivism about pain is the view that pain is a subjective state, however one could hold that view consistent with believing that in fact no one is in pain).

Trust me, I'm an expert (psst, Isaac isn't - he's one of those standard-issue science background people who then arrogantly thinks they can sort out philosophy for those philosophy dummos).

Individual subjectivism is false. If it was true, then my approving of raping j, would entail that it is right for me to rape j. But that's clearly false - false that my approving of it entails its rightness.. Thus individual subjectivism is false. Indeed, insane.

You are an individual subjectivist because of a basic error in your reasoning. You are confusing the cause of a belief or impression with its truth conditions.

Here's what you've done: you've started out with some psychological/biological theory about how we've come to have moral beliefs and feelings, yes? Then, satisfied that our moral beliefs and the statements we use to express then have been fully explained, you conclude that such beliefs and statements must be 'about' their subjective causes and thus have subjective states as their truth makers.

It's a rookie mistake. You need to recognize it now, as a matter of urgency, or your metaethical theorizing will go nowhere.

I have little time for contemporary metaethicists, but they do at least recognize the falsity of the kind of view you are defending.

B.S

Say what you mean in English.

Here's what I think: either someone argues something, or they're a b.s artist who loves themselves more than evidence.

I will demonstrate this shortly

Are you sceptical that Khaled's replies constitute an instance of it? If so, then so does your scepticism.

Oh, and argue something if you dare, or go away.

Dunning and Kruger.

What point? Are you contradicting anything I have said in the oP?

But I'm your philosophy teacher. And we don't do philosophy by looking up words in the dictionary.

So you are not paid to teach. You just scream some 'teachings' at passers-by do you?
I am on my mobile at the moment as I am up a mountain. Consequently I cannot quote any of your angry blitherings as I do not know how. But yes, there is no requirement - certainly wasn't when I was appointed anyway - to have any formal teaching qualification in order to be able to teach in a university. Ask most academics - they don't have them. None of my colleagues do anyway. Perhaps we should hire you to come in and tell us how it's done?
Did you say anything philosophical? No, I don't think so. Just more about how whether x is compatible with y turns essentially on whether s exists. Which is wrong of course. But there's no teaching some people. That's actually my attitude when it comes to teaching: let the thick go to the wall.

"Mr 180 Proof, you are drunk sir"
180 Proof: "And you, madam, are ugly. But in the morning I will have shat myself"

Anyway, rather than try and insult me, why not give your ham walnut a workout and try and say something philosophical about the op.

No, Khaled, to 'deserve' something does not mean 'right to give it to you'. Exactly what desert involves is a matter of debate. But no one thinks it means 'is right to give it to', for if it did then if it is right to give me x, then deserve x, which clearly doesn't follow.

But once more: focus. Read the op and focus.

Even your insults don't make sense.

I wouldn't if they were doing philosophy. Why do you think I would? Were they arguing for the truth of certain propositions? Then they were doing philosophy. If not, not.
The point is they weren't doing 'Eastern' philosophy, just philosophy

Agree?

And I didn't deny it. Straw man.
Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find the truth.
Music isn't. Making it isn't. Listening to it isn't.
Nor is novel writing or reading. Nor is going for a walk in the hills. Yet all of these things may both inspire and be inspired by philosophy. But they're not themselves philosophy. Obviously.

Aesthetics is part of philosophy. But it doesn't involve making music or painting pictures but rather using reason to try and discern if there is anything all beautiful things have in common apart from being beautiful; whT beauty itself is, or more broadly what aesthetic reasons are. Those are philosophical questions.

Making music is not to be doing philosophy.

Murdering and burgling is not detective work, eventhough detectives investigate murders and burglings.

I think you are confused. To 'know' something one's belief does not just have to be true, but also acquired in the right manner - that is, a manner approved of by reason. You do not have to have arrived at it by reasoning, but the manner does have to have been approved of by reason.

So, for instance, many of our beliefs are not inferred. I believe I am sat on a toilet 'doing a banno' because I apoear to be. But I have not inferred this, I just believe it and the belief was caused by how things appear. That belief is justified even though it was not a product of reasoning, because the mechanism of acquisition- being caused to believe x by an appearance of x- is approved of by reason.

But let's say you believe x because your people have a long tradition of believing it, or because you think believing it will make you happy. Well, even if the belief is true those do not seem like methods approved of by reason - they do not provide epistemic reason to believe in the truth of the beliefs in question. Thus, that's not knowledge.

Anyway, philosophy is not about having true beliefs. Just random guessing can, if one is lucky, give one true beliefs. Yet random guessing is not philosophy. It's not even about having knowledge, for one can know things without having done philosophy. Philosophy is about using reason to find out what's true.

Your definition of philosophy seems equivalent to mine insofar as you accept that it is about seeking the truth about a matter. But you have said 'using the imagination'. Yes, but the imagination's role is secondary to that of reason. We cannot make something the case by just imagining it to be so. But we can use our imagination to engage in thought experiments to which our reason can be applied. But until or unless we make some appeal to reason we are not doing philosophy, but just describing our thoughts or imaginings.

So again, just to be clear - some people who are not using reason to find out what's true (so just making shit up and pronouncing it) are nevertheless doing philosophy, right?

Eastern philosophy would then be one of the words we could use to refer to that activity - the activity of 'not' using reason but just making shit up or talking nonsense. Yes?

'Western' philosophy means 'using reason to find the truth' (hence why Augustine is a western philosopher and not an 'African' philosopher) and any other region that precedes the word philosophy means 'bullshitting'.

Yes. I agree. It's just that philosophy doesn't actually mean bullshitting. It is the practice of using reason to find the truth. And Western philosophy and philosophy turn out to be synonymous. Glad we agree.

Your own words please, not wikepedia entries.

What are you on about? Literally what did any of that mean?

Don't use reason because we are social animals? Er, what?

I am none the wiser.

I don't have a clue what you mean by eastern philosophy. And I think you don't either

They can. But they're not doing plumbing by so doing, are they!! Blimey.

Me: plumbing isn't baking.

You: why can't a plumber bake a cake? Are you saying plumbers can't bake?

Me: Christ almighty!

So what is eastern philosophy?

I think it is b.s.

There are eastern philosophers, of course.

But they don't actually qualify as doing eastern philosophy, because they use reason to pursue the truth.

So what is it?

Once again, to be clear: philosophy is using reason to find out what's true. Nothing arrogant about it. It's humble. Why? Because you undertake to listen to reason not yourself.

What's 'eastern' philosophy? Is it anything that sounds a bit mystical and vague?

You do know that what he said is what I said, yes? (No, obviously).

Address the OP. And use your own words and not quotes from ghastly posturing nobodies.

Focus.

First - if you deserve something, it doesn't follow that it is permissible to give it to you.

Rapists deserve to be taped. Wrong to rape them though. Torturers deserve to be tortured. Wrong to torture them though. Simple point, well understood for millennia. You might want to learn it.

As a result it does not follow from us all deserving everything that happens to us that we are permitted to a anything to anyone.

Now, that's not relevant to this debate. So do try and focus. Christ.

wooof.woof . woooooof.

Why not plumbers? They're philosophers too surely? And bakers. And candlestick makers. Hell, everyone is a philosopher.
Here's some philosophy for the forum to mull on:

Lalalala. Doobidoo. Woof woof woof.

And I still don't have the faintest idea what Eastern, or Chinese, or African philosophy is. All I know from you is that Augustine - an undisputed giant of philosophy who was also undisputablyAfrican - isn't anything to do with African philosophy. Kinda ridiculous, no?

It's not a narrow definition. It's what the word means. It usefully distinguishes one activity - using reason to find out what's true - from others.

Where's Peter? Oh, he's gone down the philosophy.

Broken pipe? Phone a philosopher.

I'm hungry and want something spicy. I know, I'll order a couple of philosophers.

See?

Question begging

Are you 6? Pathetic. Argue something or go away, stalker.

I did. Stop trying to be me. You don't have the substance or wit. That one was focused on you. See?

You said what Chicago blues denotes and then said 'it can't mean that'. So, you know, great example!
Here's another equally inept one: what's Chicago pizza? Is it just a pizza that's in Chicago? No. Is it a pizza in which the tomato sauce is on top of the cheese?
Er, yes. That's what it is.
Now what is Eastern philosophy? Tell me Banno. Is it bullshit, perhaps? That is, 'not philosophy at all, but an excuse to talk crap under the banner of doing philosophy while refusing to clarify what one is talking about and rejecting all rational scrutiny as forms of oppression'? Coz that's my working definition.

Have you read Lao Tzu? Give me one of his arguments.

Both Socrates and Plato made arguments.

Do I have an unduly narrow concept of bakery if I don't consider music a form of it?

This is our exchange:
Me: mountaineering is the practice of trying to climb mountains. Eastern mountaineering is either mountaineering in the east or, if it does not involve trying to climb any mountains, it is just a misleading name for something that isn't mountaineering.

You: name me some mountains that have been successfully climbed.

Me: Everest. K2. Lots and lots.

You: how do you determine if a mountain has been climbed? Your last answer didn't deserve a reply, because I didn't understand its relevance and if I don't understand something it doesn't deserve a reply because i'm 8.

They don't- some think like me. Why not just reflect on the op and see if you agree rather than appealing to authority

no true proposition is also false.

The conclusion of this argument is true if the premises are:

1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore p and q.

And so on.

But you miss the point spectacularly. Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find the truth. That doesn't presuppose that we ready know what's true, but that we don't.

It's like me saying that mountaineering is the practice of trying to climb mountains and you replying 'name me a mountain that has been successfully climbed'

That's not a quote from me. That's you.

Philosophy is the practice of using reason to find out what's true.

It can be used and abused. But that's the basic idea.

The b.s. artists who like to talk vaguely of 'other philosophical traditions' are not interested in using reason to find out what's true. They are interested in striking the right pose. They are posers. Empty kettles.

Poor old St Augustine. He is one of the giants of philosophy whose influence has been gargantuan. And he was African. Yet according to the self appointed b.s artists who decide these things, he wasn't doing 'African philosophy'. Odd. Was he not African enough? No, can't be that - he was African and proud of it. Was he not philosophical enough? Can't be that either. Vast output, constantly changing his views in light of further reflection. Was it that he wasn't full of shit? Hmmm.