I've defined "philosophy" throughout, so it's pretty disingenuous and disrespectful of you to pretend like the word I haven't. The word has been defined. Everybody knows what we're talking about.
Uhm... I said essentially defined, not trying to rewrite what you literally wrote as a definition. Perhaps I should have worded it better as... "defined as anything else... and these other things don't have rigor"?
I honestly don't see what the problem was with my characterization. You believe those fields I listed have rigor, right? Philosophy, your definition, does not include them and what is part of it is not rigorous, right?
If there is no problem with that the rest of my post flows. If there is a problem, I'd like to know what it was.
I still am left to wonder why philosophy, if its so great, can't be defended honestly.
While I personally agree with and like Archer's post I can grant you smugness issue. I didn't concentrate so much on Jon and Sub's posts (sorry guys) since A and Mod's seem to be taking up prime space. So I can't speak toward them. But I think Mod keeps hitting some strong posts at you that are not in any way disagreeable or dishonest.
As for me, you didn't answer my post because of a mistaken impression of my opening definition. Please give it a second shot if you have the time.
In quick summary: You have a list of fields of study which are rigorous. They happen to be within by definition of philosophy. Hence if you ask for proof of rigor then I'd have to present them. That you do not define philosophy such that they are NOT within it, merely means we are using two different definitions for the same word. Then I gave my reason for using the definition I do, and state I am not sure why to use yours (or believe it is the modern usage).
If your argument is that my definition still falls, despite including the list of fields you agree are rigorous, because of the other fields within it which are not... then I discussed the only three remaining fields I know of. Epistemology is just a logic game played against scenarios (similar to what people do in math and chem all the time when trying to work something out). As long as you find logic rigorous then it is rigorous. Metaphysics is pretty much just an advancement of a theory, which you then apply to an epistemology and check results (to test its validity). Again that's a logic game.
The only problem I see is not rigor, but whether you'd feel testing so many theories or so in depth is worth the time. Some specific E and M combos might result in lack of rigor for that case specifically, internally, but then that's just like ID compared to Science and it does get dismissed by most in the community.
Aesthetics is the closest to something that isn't rigorous, but it's pretty well dead and as you can see by the links doesn't even get classified as as subject anymore.
So where is the lack of rigor? I showed the rigor!!!!
Unless as Mod was asking you want rigor if rigor, by which I take it means the absolute TRUTH, beyond error? No one's handing out that kind of rigor, even science... no, ESPECIALLY not science.
h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard