So which are type are you, Tom? — 180 Proof
Many people are asking really big questions and exploring the world’s philosophical heritage. — Wayfarer
You're right; parsimony is good, but how parsimonious can we be while still being comprehensive? Can you think of ways to collapse these categories further? — Janus
A fool who know s/he's a fool or a fool who doesn't know? – that is the question. :smirk:I'm happy to be a fool. — Tom Storm
Two faces of every drachma: naturalist (i.e. reality) or non-naturalist (i.e. ideality). :fire:[P]arsimony is good, but how parsimonious can we be while still being comprehensive? — Janus
Maybe I should put the two types this way: naturalist (re: immanence) and non-naturalist (re: non-immanence).I would say the salient polemic is materiality vs ideality. If idealism were true it would be the reality. — Janus
Also, I think concepts like e.g. realism, materialism & idealism are suppositions and not propositional statements, so that being "true", as you suggest, Janus, isn't determinative; rather the self-consistency, contextual coherence with adjacent-concepts, descriptive clarity & communicative usefulness, for example, are more adequate criteria – rules-of-thumb – for de/selecting (or creating) philosophical concepts. What do you think? :chin: — 180 Proof
A good list that I'd modify/ augment a little: Critical thinkers, system builders (your "theorists"), dogmatic acolytes, dilettantes, practitioners, monomaniacs, artists, spiritualists, mystics, religionists, logicists, scientists. phenomenologists, relativists, positivists, post-modernists. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.