https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14904/quick-puzzle-where-the-wheel-meets-the-road

See site guidelines on posts:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines/p1

The lounge is the appropriate place for posts like the one moved.

I disagree. I think it would be obvious to anyone with a little familiarity with philosophy of math that this question opens up in multiple directions, from contemplation of infinitesimals to set theory.

But wait, NOS said something about Trump. Let me go slam some brain cells together to answer him!

Perhaps climate change should go to the Lounge as well. Keeping it the main page makes it more philosophy than science?

Perhaps climate change should go to the Lounge as well. Keeping it the main page makes it more philosophy than science? — jgill

And Israel? And Ukraine? And whatever the hell other than philosophy?

See How To Write An OP. Issue isn’t topic.

Discussions in the categories of Politics and Current Affairs, Humanities and Social Science, and Science and Technology, all live on the home page, belonging to Interesting stuff. Whether that’s good for a philosophy forum is debatable (generally I think it is, but the interminable and mostly very unphilosophical discussions like those on Ukraine or climate change seem to require some other way of organizing things); but I’m not sure if the Lounge is the right place for them.

Anyway, the OP under discussion here was moved because it was lazy and far too brief. OPs need to have more than “x says y, true or false”.

Anyway, the OP under discussion here was moved because it was lazy and far too brief. OPs need to have more than “x says y, true or false”. — Jamal

I think the appeal of the simple question is that it inspires one to think outside the box for a second. Instead of trying to figure Kant out, do some philosophy yourself. There isn't one right answer to the question. That's what was cool about it.

But I get it. It looked lazy to you.

I posted a reply in your thread, but I didn't think to tag anyone, so...

It isn't philosophy or philosophy adjacent, and is a lazy OP. As for comparisons.

Discussion about Donald Trump often veers into the territory about what counts as just conduct for a state official. Which is philosophy. Say what you like about Donald Trump and his supporters, they make a lot of highly discussable and disruptive events.

Discussion about climate change often veers into the territory about what ought to be done about it, and appropriate attitudes towards eminent extinction - or denial of it. Which is philosophy.

Discussion about Israel/Palestine often veers into the territory of sovereignty, just wars, and the ethics of retaliation in conflict, all of those are philosophy. You can say something similar about Ukraine/Russia.

In of those cases, you couldn't allow the discussion of the philosophical issues without also allowing the factual ones.

In this case, there's a single sentence, there's no ability to assume common cultural touchstones, and underlying opinions people will have on the issue don't have philosophical content. It's a maths puzzle, with confusion around it, much like 0.999.. = 1.

This isn't to say you can't have philosophical discussions about maths problems - like 0.999... = 1 can get into potential vs actual infinity and whether the limit construction in analysis actually represents the concept of infinity. Which makes the OP less philosophy adjacent than 0.999... = 1, and so belongs as a curiosity in the lounge.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Have we ever had a thread about that? I think 0.9̄=1 is quite the interesting topic in philosophy of mathematics. — Lionino

I think it's been a few years. They'd crop up every week on the old forum. So I have a stubborn belief that they happen all the time.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

potential vs actual infinity and whether the limit construction in analysis actually represents the concept of infinity. — fdrake

Instantaneous velocity does touch directly on those issues, so Aristotle. :roll:

Plus you copied my use of "adjacent" you prick.

You wanna bring up Aristotelian vs Galilean physics, do it in the OP!

You wanna bring up Aristotelian vs Galilean physics, do it in the OP! — fdrake

I honestly thought it was obvious from the question itself. Oh well.