You obviously are no stranger to psychological projection.

And non sequitur.

You do give good pout, however.

You misread (I can't even say "misinterpreted") my OP and comments subsequent. Perhaps in lieu of putting words in my mouth and inserting your foot in yours, you can ask for clarification and/or additional support for claims made.

As for "first principles", nothing like begging the question.

Wincing refutation.

Brutal polemic,

Devastating rejoinder.

Compelling counter.

Always amusing when trolls like you, who lack the intellect and intellectual integrity to address specific points and offer intelligent rejoinder, instead turn to non sequitur, ad hominem and pout.

First off, you need to learn the difference between language meaning and language use. Second, if you disagree with my given definition of "knowledge", you need only take issue and offer opposing reasoned argument or evidence. But claiming what you say is my purpose with such definition is not to falsify or otherwise invalidate that definition in the slightest.

Again, you have not engaged a single point presented in the OP. Instead, you dance, making tangential remarks, voicing unsupported disagreement, invoking extraneous historical/etymological considerations.

I have already stated who I recognize as a philosopher. Popper is another. Hume another.

Not at all. The utterance "The cat is on the mat" is ponderable, empirically verifiable; "other minds exist" is not. Not sure what necessity "unpacking" serves in this instance.

What entrapment? And "metaphysical objects" is an oxymoron

No, it doesn't. Or rather "can't", and this precisely because it is imponderable (not conveniently "currently unknowable"). The epistemological issue is not whether the statement "other minds exist" is true or false; the epistemological issue is that the statement "other minds exist" cannot be adjudicated or otherwise rationally assessed to be one or the other, and is therefore epistemically meaningless.

Of course. And again for reasons given.

You obviously have a gift for non sequitur.

Your etymological shift says nothing as regards my OP or any point made. More, you falsify my definition of "knowledge" by presenting argument or examples counter to that definition, not by saying that "knowledge" throughout history has had different meaning. If "knowledge" is anything other or more than "awareness of what is", you need only say so and why.

Already given (Plato's remark on "Forms").

Can you type without sticking out your tongue?

What "argument"?

And more of the same.

zzz-zzz-zzz

Plato's writings are metaphysics, not philosophy. That is the whole point of my OP.

Etymologically, "love" at time and context of ancient Greek philosophy meant "regard" or "appreciation".

And more of the same.

zzz-zzz-zzz

Q.E.D.

No, by knowledge I mean awareness of "what is". "What is" is that which is empirically verified.

They are not "snarky" remarks, Your comments have no substance. My counters to you just run off your back like water off a duck's. Your continued avoidance of the fact that your responses here are void of explanatory and/or supportive force serves only as testimony to your lack of intellectual integrity.

Again, more unsupported sentiment in lieu of reasoned counter. There seems to be a widespread belief here that just one's pale utterance alone can somehow suffice the matter, that supportive logic, reason, argument and/or evidence are not a necessary condition of philosophical discussion.

FYI, philosophy deals only with knowledge of the world, not with self-knowledge, That is because self-knowledge has no objective, corroborative means to prove the epistemic worth of its claims.

Please explain how metaphysics is philosophy when philosophy means "love of wisdom" and metaphysics does not (read: "cannot") provide the knowledge required for wisdom to obtain. Thanks.

Sorry, pouting is not substitute for reasoned rejoinder, either.

Again, more of the same from you. You have no argument; you have an unsupported point of view. Unfortunately, trafficking a Weltanschauung is not substitute for reasoned rejoinder. This is not to say you are not entitled to your feelings; it is to say that your feelings do not describe "what is", only "what is to you". Big difference.

Thanks for making my point. The propositions issuing from metaphysics are imponderable, i.e., they cannot be rationally assessed, i.e., they cannot be rendered a truth value. If they cannot be rendered a truth value, then they cannot be claimed as knowledge. If they cannot be claimed as knowledge, then they cannot eventuate in wisdom. And if they cannot eventuate in wisdom, then there is nothing for philosophy to love. Thus, it is logically and epistemologically impossible for ethics and aesthetics to be philosophy.

Again, you give nothing beyond how you happen to "see" things. That is not philosophy; it is what neighborhood biddies exchange over the backyard fence while hanging laundry.

Yes, but 2023 Buick Enclave has third row video.

Your turn.

Do you or anyone else here ever post anything other than unsupported sentiment? If all to philosophy were trafficking opinions and personal points of view, anyone capable of language would be a philosopher; any child can do as much, and as little.

By the way, your use of emojis is impressive. Harvard?

Again, begging the question and offering appeals to others do not constitute reasoned rejoinder; they merely evade the point and juxtapose an unsupported personal view, as if just say-so alone should somehow suffice the matter (Hint: It doesn't).

RE: "Aesthetic remarks are not hypotheses" is true, that such remarks are focusing utterances which people accept or not, irrespective of experiment of empirical proof of claim. Again, W was addressing an epistemological issue with aesthetic remarks, not engaging in aesthetics itself.

Do tell.

Anything to the point? Anything at all?

My post has nothing to do with prior discussions here about what the word "metaphysics" really means; mine is an epistemological question, not an etymological one. Nor do your Wiki and dictionary appeals to "authority" remotely suffice the matter; they only ignore my point and highlight your inability and/or unwillingness to do first-order thinking on your own. Lastly, trafficking your ideas and unsupported personal views is not philosophy; it is cocktail party/coffee klatch schmoozing.