This shows the problem with the question about the purpose of philosophy. People are engaged in different activities, and the only thing they all have in common is that they are called philosophy.

Do you conclude from this that all those professors getting paid to teach and write are not doing philosophy?

I provided one example after you concluded it was a resentment-filled fantasy absent any example or reason altogether. — NOS4A2

You will be able to give a more reasoned response if you change my words, but I said nothing about your fantasy being "absent any example".

The absence of reason is evident in the assumption that what holds true for one state holds true for all.

You claim:

I didn’t make the conclusion from one example. — NOS4A2

So what is it that led to your conclusion about "the state" and "all states"? One example is not sufficient. Examples are not sufficient unless you include the example includes all states.

I suspect you are right. Drilling down on the word "love" might cause some discomfort. — James Riley

It may be the word "wisdom" that they have a problem with.

Philosophy is, literally, the love of wisdom. — James Riley

If you were to visit most university philosophy departments the faculty would regard this claim as quaint.

So please, explain the logical fallacy. — NOS4A2

Do you really not understand or are you just being obstinate?

You said "the state" and "any state" These are all inclusive claims about all states, each and every state. To conclude something about any state from one state is a logical fallacy. We cannot conclude that all dogs have three legs because Tripod does.

You went from:

We probably have different conceptions of the state. I see any state system as ... — NOS4A2

to the Islamic State. Is it necessary to explain the logical fallacy to you?

I've never been quite sure how to interpret this 'love of wisdom'. — Tom Storm

Plato's Symposium is about eros or desire. Socrates talks about the desire for wisdom, a passionate pursuit for something you do not possess.

We probably have different conceptions of the state. — NOS4A2

Yes, mine is based on actual regimes, your's on a resentment fueled fantasy. If that is far as it goes then that is your problem. If you act on it it becomes our problem. And then you may lose whatever precious little freedom you now have. You no doubt will call this injustice but I call it justice.

But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice. — NOS4A2

It means that we work from within the system to make necessary corrections to promote justice. Justice, as I understand it, goes beyond your desire to be left alone or the absolute protection of every right you might claim.

If you want to escape the influence of Marx in rigorous philosophy, you generally have to find philosophers born before 1840. — Joshs

One of the most important movements in political philosophy was ushered in mid-twentieth century by the work of Leo Strauss. He is not easy to understand but very easily misunderstood. For this reason opinions about him are all over the place. He is deceptively simple. His language is jargon free. He returns to the works of Plato and Aristotle, but as a corrective rather than a viable alternative. He is critical of political science and value free social sciences in general, favoring instead political philosophy and the recognition of irreconcilable tensions of political life.

Obviously I have no authority. — NOS4A2

Then I would tell you to report it to the proper authority.

As is your habit you shift from one thing to another when you are no longer able to defend a position. You were talking about:

my governments — NOS4A2

not someone without authority showing up at your door.

Would my extended parking be a violation of the laws of the state or municipality? Are you authorized by a government agency to collect fines?

Should I meddle in your life because what you do affects others? — NOS4A2

It depends on what I am doing and how it affects others.

↪bert1

Do you consider yourself an anarchist?

I don’t, though I tend in that direction. — NOS4A2

He is your standard run of the mill myopic libertarian.

I don’t want isolation. By “leave me alone” I mean I want them to quit meddling in my life. That’s what you fail to recognize. — NOS4A2

Once again: What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is because of this that you cannot be left alone. The only way what you do would not affect others is if you lived in isolation. To be left alone you must be alone. And even then there would be an impact on others.

Philosophy's sine qua non "purpose" I've found is both (meta-cognitively) hygenic & fitness-maintaining, that is, to unlearn self-immiserating, unwise (i.e. foolish, stupid ~ maladaptive) habits through, at minimum, (1) a regimen of daily reflective exercises (akin to yoga, tai-chi, krav maga ...) as well as (2) occasionally participating in dialectics (or seeking reflective equilibrium) with other contemplatives. — 180 Proof

This is close to my own practice and to how philosophy was practiced in the Socratic schools, but, as I am sure you know, this does not describe the practice of philosophy for much of the history of western philosophy or what is most commonly taught in academia.

I have not found a description of philosophy that is all inclusive of what it is that those who are called philosophers do. And so, there is no single answer to what the purpose of philosophy is that will be agreed on.

I just want them to leave me alone. — NOS4A2

What you fail to recognize is that you are not alone. What you choose to do and not do affects others. It is possible to live in isolation, but you choose not to, and so you cannot at the same time choose to be left alone.

Luke I'm not seeing a point to this conversation. — Banno

The point is that it is a flaccid designator.

It seems as if there are three different issues under discussion here:

1) Whatever distinction the OP is making. 2) The distinction I am making. 3) Kripke's a posteriori necessities.

I do not know anything about all possible worlds and very little about the actual world we live in, but
I see no problem with this: a molecule of water = H20. Or molecular grade water = H20.

You want to use "water" for impure H₂O. Go ahead. Pure water is necessarily the very same thing as H₂O. — Banno

It is not a matter of how I want to use the term water, it is the common usage for the stuff that comes out of the tap, the stuff in lakes and rivers and rain. It is not pure H20. Generally potable water is considered pure but it contains minerals and so is not H20, it is a mixture of H20 and other stuff.

You're perhaps using H₂O as a description rather than as a rigid designator, — Banno

I don't think so. From Stanford:

A rigid designator designates the same object in all possible worlds in which that object exists and never designates anything else.

My claim is that H20 is not in all cases the same object as water. The molecular structure can differ. H20 always has the same structure. Water does not. Water contains minerals and contaminants. H20 does not. A chemical analysis will reveal this. If they are the same object then they could be used interchangeably in all possible situations. They cannot.

So let's use Hesperus and Phosphorus instead. — Banno

But that missed the point. Hesperus and Phosphorus designate the same object. In many cases H20 and water also designate the same object but not in all cases.

the denial of basic human rights is another, — NOS4A2

How about the denial of the basic human right to life by those who have no regard for the lives of others and refuse to follow simple safety precautions and wear a mask?

I don't require constraints to live in peace with others. — Tzeentch

That may be but it is evident that many do.

As such, certain individuals benefitted while others were mostly restrained — NOS4A2

Covid is not selective. Anyone who avoids getting it benefits. Those around them to whom it may spread benefit. Business benefits by not having a workforce that is sick or dead and goods and services they cannot sell because a large segment of the population is sick or dead.

Even with all the measures put in place covid is the third leading cause of death in the US. What would the numbers be like if nothing had been done?

You say nothing about masks. Some act as though a mask mandate is the height of tyranny.

I just don't believe any of it to be legitimate. — Tzeentch

This depends on the assumptions about human beings that you bring to the question. If you ascribe to some theory of social atomism, that is, radical autonomy, then any constraint on your freedom will be seen as illegitimate. If, on the other hand you think human beings are by nature social animals then there must be constraints if we are to live together in peace.

Yea, we're not really getting any closer. — frank

Well, you could explain his line of thought, but you have no interest in doing so. Or, I could spend some time reading Kripke, but I have no interest in doing so.

Why necessarily? Couldn't the laws of the universe be different such that H20 is a mineral? — frank

Necessary in the same sense that a dog is necessarily a mammal, but a mammal is not necessarily a dog.

I cannot say what would or would not be if the physical laws of the universe were different. Apparently in your scenario they would not be so different that there would no longer be molecules of H20. Whether it was classified as a mineral would be up to whatever beings there were doing classifications. In our universe, however frozen water is classified as a mineral but not liquid water.

This is the line of thought Kripke addresses. — frank

I know very little of Kripke's line of thought.

You sound pretty defensive yourself, that's why you joined the discussion isn't it? — Apollodorus

You are projecting. I attempt to defend my position, but I do not get emotionally wrapped up in it. It makes no difference at all to me whether you agree or disagree with me.

I joined the discussion because I have an abiding interest in political philosophy. My interests are largely theoretical. It is clear that you take this all too personally. I think you would do well to ask yourself why. You may take this as a personal attack but it is not.

Freedom without constraint not restraint.

My question was "And what makes us so defensive when discussing opposite views?" — Apollodorus

By us I assume you include yourself. Start with that. What makes you so defensive? If you say that it is because others are, you are not being honest with yourself.

And this group of people can lay a claim to the individual's freedom or impose responsibilities, then? — Tzeentch

Does that not happen where you are from?

I don't think a state of nature implies an absence of families. — Tzeentch

then

The family is a social structure with rules and differences in power. It is not freedom without constraint.

Man is born into a society not a "state of nature".
— Fooloso4

What is society, and how did it take man out of this "state of nature"? — Tzeentch

Society is a group of people. Here we are talking about a politically structured society.

The state of nature is a fiction created by social contract and natural rights theorists - Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and others. Man has never lived in a state of nature. There has always been some organization, starting with the family.

So you believe H20 is necessarily water?
— frank

If he doesn't, I'll defend that view from the point of view of Kripke. Water = H₂O. "H₂O" is a rigid designator. Water is a rigid designator.. Hence. necessarily, Water = H₂O.

Two Dimensional Semantics may provide an alternative, and I would welcome such a discussion. — Banno

The object of a rigid designator is the same. If water is the same object as H20 they could be used interchangeably. They cannot. The molecular structure may not be identical. Water may contain minerals and contaminants. H20 does not. So despite whatever Kripke may claim they are not identical.

I know nothing of all possible worlds, but I know in this actual world in laboratory conditions you cannot simply use water in place of H20. You can, however, use H20 in place of water.

So you believe H20 is necessarily water? — frank

Yes, but water is not necessarily H20

So we agree that sometimes "H20” means water and sometimes it doesn't. Right? — frank

From my second post:

H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20. — Fooloso4

For meaning, look to use. — frank

And this is why just any water will not do in the chem lab. What you take H2O to mean based on the use you are familiar with is not the concept, not the same substance, not the same structure, not the same meaning, and not the same use as what you will find in the lab.

Modern Liberalism, in my reading, is a more social, statist version of classical liberalism. — NOS4A2

You are talking about contemporary liberalism. Modern Liberalism refers to the classic philosophers of natural rights.

I'll match the energy you put into talking about Wittgenstein with me. — frank

The difference is that I am asking for definitions of specific technical terms. Terms that do not have one single agreed upon usage. Hence I asked you about your understanding of those terms. In our previous discussion, if I remember correctly, no specialized vocabulary was used. There are other differences as well, but I will leave it there.

It doesn't matter that "water" could be used to mean a mixture of chlorimine and water that might come from your tap. One is expected to discern the use here. — frank

The use of what? The term water? The difference between intension and extension?

The elements of H20 are two hydrogen molecules combined with one molecule of oxygen. This is the case in all possible worlds. Water will have the elements of H20 plus some combination of minerals and impurities. When the chemist uses the term H20 she does not mean water. She means only that substance that contains two hydrogen molecules combined with one molecule of oxygen.

It has been used literally (and as a straw man) in Marx, for example. — NOS4A2

We were discussing the passage by Blanc that you cited, not Marx.

I’m not a fan of modern liberalism myself. — NOS4A2

Modern liberalism and individualism are the same thing - the freedom and rights of the individual.