Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 1
    The arm-chair philosopher decides and his colleagues check. You are onto something.
    – user14511
    Commented Aug 10, 2022 at 18:28
  • 1
    Are you assuming an Aristotelean notion of analysis where there is a right and a wrong way to analyze any given thing as opposed to just different degrees of usefulness?
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Aug 10, 2022 at 19:17
  • @DavidGudeman I don't know what either of those notions are, I am just thinking about properties from a Platonist viewpoint
    – r0k1m
    Commented Aug 10, 2022 at 21:54
  • What would you say if my analysis included bats as a kind of bird because for my purposes all flying creatures should be grouped together? Would you say, that's fine if it's useful, or would you say that's wrong because bats are not, in fact, birds? The second answer means that you think there is something essential to conceptual analysis; the first answer means that you think conceptual analysis is just a pragmatic exercise that you have to match to your purposes, and it can be more or less useful for a purpose, but not right or wrong.
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Aug 10, 2022 at 22:09
  • @DavidGudeman I would definitely say that there is something essential to the analysis
    – r0k1m
    Commented Aug 11, 2022 at 9:14