the student loan forgiveness program. I personally never liked it, and I understand why working class people would resent it. — Relativist

I started out ambivalent about the program but came around to feeling it was a good idea. From what I can tell from the web, support for forgiveness was lukewarm at best. As you can see from my OP, I'm not so much worried about the Democrats policies as I am their non-policy actions.

Similarly with aid to Ukraine: many resent it. There's no apparent, immediate benefit to Americans. — Relativist

Most Americans support aid for Ukraine across the political spectrum. Whether or not there is resentment from some, I don't see it as an issue that is relevant to my concerns as described in the OP.

If only there were a candidate that focused on working class issues, had popular proposals, took no corporate money, and had an energized, diverse coalition. It would be an example they could emulate. Alas, no such candidate exists.

Oh wait… — Mikie

I'm not talking about candidates with good ideas, I'm talking about how to win. Sanders is too far left.

the Democrats need a more bold vision than what they have been doing which is offering essentially the status quo with some tweaks. — Mr Bee

I'll say it again, I think Biden's domestic policies have been the right ones. I had hoped to see what he could do in the second term.

Another suggestion would be to allow the Democrat voters the power to choose their own candidate. — Hanover

You're right that the way Harris was chosen had a negative impact on the results.

Given how they've treated him it seems more like they fear Bernie than simply disagree with him. — Mr Bee

I like Sanders a lot, but I don't think his kind of liberal can win. We need to be more in the center.

Biden was a mediocre politician — Mr Bee

You and I disagree on Biden.

I am a strong leaning conservative and you seem to be a strong leaning Democrat, — Bob Ross

I am a strong liberal on policy and value issues, but a moderate on process, governance, and compromise. I don't think that's comparable to your type of conservativism. From what I can see you are a jingoist ideologue. You toe the party line and don't seem particularly interested in how the US will be governed as opposed to ideology.

the reason the democrats lost is because they have lost the common sense constitutional values. — Bob Ross

Says a supporter of the party that tried to overthrow the results of a free and fair election for president in 2020. The party that refused to consider a Democratic Supreme Court nominee for purely partisan reasons. This is a joke.

Every time I discuss gun control with a liberal, they always end up using the phrase “reasonable gun control” to advocate for the infringement of our 2nd amendment rights; — Bob Ross

I attributed a willingness to accept reasonable gun control to conservatives I know and know of. It includes such things as registration, permitting, background checks, gun safety, and restrictions on ownership for certain groups, e.g. convicted criminals. Most people in the US would approve of that type of measure. I think they would be approved by even those in conservative states if they trusted it wouldn't lead to more restrictive measures.

provide funding to send transgender students to private schools where they will be more welcome

Who is funding this? It better not be my taxes. — Bob Ross

I envisioned it being paid for by private funds. Liberals should put their money where their mouth is. Just like conservatives should put their money where their anti-abortion mouths are and provide funding for all those children they want to see born.

The main difference I personally find between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tend to think all ideally and conservatives all pragmatically. — Bob Ross

This from the guy who wants to send US troops into other sovereign countries to force our ideological preferences down their throats. That's pragmatism?

People want a merit-based society, where race, gender, ethnicity, etc. do not matter. — Bob Ross

No. Republicans want to pretend the way black people have been treated historically is no longer an issue. It turns my stomach. The State of Florida has made it part of the school curricula that slaves benefitted from slavery. The government has to have a role in setting things right.

let’s stop with the identity politics—it’s nonsense. — Bob Ross

The Republican party is as guilty of this as the Democrats. That's why I want to get us out of that business.

My questions for you would be:

1. Why should the government meddle in gay monogamous marriage but not gay polygamous marriage?

2. If the idea is just to have the State recognize people who are promising their lives, intimately, to each other, then why not like a libertarian stance and get rid of institutionalized marriage altogether? People could still get married in the metaphorical sense. — Bob Ross

For me, marriage has always been about protecting children. If you don't plan to have children, you shouldn't get married. That would apply to both gay and straight people. But that would never work, so allowing gay marriage is the only practical approach. The great majority of Americans, even in conservative states, support this.

If everyone who thinks differently than you is forced to listen to lectures about how stupid they are, — Hanover

That's what the forum is for.

All and all, I think globalization has been bad for American workers
— T Clark

Really? In what sense? — javi2541997

American wages, adjusted for inflation, haven't gone up since the 1970s. Good paying industrial jobs have been replaced by service jobs. The economic distance between working people and management and technical people has gotten much bigger.

What if the donkey (I love the party logo) gives up on 'Indiana' or 'Oklahoma' and they put all the efforts in an industrialised working class like the one of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? — javi2541997

The Democrats put very little money in conservative states except sometimes for specific federal candidates. Most money is spent for "swing states", e.g. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan.

In my experience, Americans in general are open-minded and not against voting for a female or someone with ties outside their country, but they have to have proved themselves as competent in their own right. The whole thing seemed a little thrown together last minute, and it appeared like they didn't approach the fact that she was female with enough caution to make it seem genuine. — kudos

I don't think the manner in which Harris was chosen was the issue. My guess is that it was primarily that we let the Republicans set the agenda. My suggestions are meant to be a part of addressing that.

To be blunt, this trap is mostly made up of people who have done bad things in their past who now are forced to repress their violent feelings to live arbitrarily free. — kudos

This is exactly the attitude I am arguing against.

If you are alive and breathing, chances are you have some moral indecency in you, one should be reminded of this from time to time. Whoever you are, you probably have a darker side of your personality and it needs to be fed regularly or else it will begin to hurt you from within. — kudos

Your opinion of human nature is different from mine.

The problem is that I feel like party leadership understands the latter but they actively choose not to change in order to maintain their influence. — Mr Bee

I don't think influence is the primary issue, although they do have to deal with those further to the left. I think they do what they believe, both personally and ideologically.

The neoliberal status quo era is over and to be able to push back against the populist right the left needs a populist message of their own. It's clear what that message should be but that makes the elites in the party uncomfortable so they'll do everything they can to push out any potentially inspiring candidates with a bold vision even if it comes at the risk of putting up dull and pathetic figures like Biden. — Mr Bee

What would a populist Democrat look like? What issues would they promote?

As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, I think Biden is the best president in my adult lifetime.

Yeah but it's hard to see most Jewish voters being mad simply for reining in Netanyahu from committing war crimes vs. Arabs who will be mad if you don't. Obama was able to stand up to Israel on issues like the Iran Nuclear Deal but his support from Jewish voters remained strong. — Mr Bee

Your probably right, I was wrong to focus on just Arabs vs. Jews. There are strong voices for Israel in both Republican and Democratic parties along with strong voices for Palestine with the Democrats. I think the general sense of chaos hurt Biden and Harris.

I disagree that Republicans destroy any more so than any other ideological movement destroys. Conserving by nature seeks to preserve the status quo, so destruction it would seem, is more useful to a liberal than a conservative. Liberals by nature seek to overthrow (destroy) existing institutions, mores and customs. — Fire Ologist

This is a characterization of the differences between the parties/political philosophies that might have had some truth in the past, but it no longer does. Republicans no longer care about governing, they only care about winning and their strategy for achieving that is to drive people apart. Republicans are not conservatives in any meaningful way anymore.

Save for reproductive rights being a good issue for liberals. It’s a loser issue for both sides. The sides have hardened as ‘protecting the baby by destroying the mother’ versus ‘protecting the mother by destroying the baby.’ Losers all around. Both parties should figure out a way to start that conversation over. — Fire Ologist

I agree with this approach from a policy perspective, but I was only talking from a present day political viewpoint - what will win elections. The majority of Americans, including in conservative states, support reproductive rights, including abortion, with differences in details between regions. The vast majority support birth control.

Hating guns and gun owners - another loser like abortion. Guns and gun owners, like unwanted pregnancy and abortions, are here to stay. Figure it out, regulate it, set limits, argue to change minds, but do not ban. — Fire Ologist

Agreed, but that will take changes in attitude on both sides. In this discussion, I'm only looking at what Democrats can do without Republican support.

Our politicians, leaders, and media, and most of all, you and me, do this all of the time. We ignore the individual by seeing only some stereotype. — Fire Ologist

Yes. This is the main point I'm trying to make. Why can't we all just get along. I think most Americans still share more values, and more foundational issues, than they disagree on. Again, there are things Democrats can do without Republican participation.

We all need to remember the people in our lives that we know and love who also happen to vote for the other party. We have to humbly accept that our own opinions may be the wrong ones and listen. — Fire Ologist

When my family get together every year in February for my stepmother's birthday there are usually 15 of us and we're all strongly liberal. For the past few years my brother's parents-in-law have been coming. They're from South Carolina and are Trump supporters. We have to keep them at the far end of the table away from my sister, who is vociferous and uncompromising in here political positions. I'm surprised they keep coming. You can see it is hard for them to accept the members of the family with non-standard ways of life, but they are polite and keep it to themselves.

Everyone is looking to do good. — Fire Ologist

I don't think that's necessarily true. Both parties have significant groups who care more about winning than governing. In the Republican party, that group has become the majority of the base.

We should never think of our political party of choice as anything more than a convenience. — Fire Ologist

I don't agree. The Republicans have made themselves as a conscious political act the party who cares more about ideology than governing. It started in the 1970s.

But yes, you and I agree on most of this.

You know how I think the Democrats could have won this election? If they had nominated an old-style National Review-type Republican in the tradition of George H. Bush, Eisenhower, David Brooks, George Will , Charles Krauthammer, Liz Cheney and David Frum (strong on national defense, supportive of an anti-Russia policy, economically libertarian and socially moderate). Progressives would have held their noses and voted for such a candidate over Trump, while enough potential Trump voters would have changed sides to put the Democrats over the top. — Joshs

There used to be moderately liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Not anymore. The Democrats in Congress couldn't even work with moderates like Manchin and Sinema, so they're gone now. So, I think your idea is pie in the sky. For me, Biden was exactly the right candidate. As far as I'm concerned, he is the best president in my adult lifetime. My first election was in 1972. I voted for McGovern. What I'm looking for is a strategy so that candidates like him or Harris can win.

Second, and most important: what the large densely-populated urban centers (which is where most democrats are concentrated) need is very different from what rural voters and social conservatives need. 70% of economic productivity and wealth generation is located in Democrat-dominated urban centers, and Democrat views on everything from energy policy to healthcare and education are direct expressions of their understanding of what it takes to make that economic engine thrive.

Trump supporters know exactly how to make an economy of the 1950’s thrive, but that’s a recipe for failure in the 21st century. The urban dwellers are speaking a foreign language to the ears of Trump supporters, not just on social issues but also economic ones, so we progressives can’t expect the majority of the country who supports Trump, and a return to the economic thinking of a previous century, to fork over their money to support our causes. — Joshs

I'm not sure what to say to your characterization of the differences between Democrats and Republicans. It's certainly an oversimplification. I also think it's not accurate. I think on economic issues, Democratic policies are better for working class people, no matter where they live. That's the point of my post - we have to back off on primarily social policies that drive these voters away.

We need to find a way to use our own plentiful resources to further our way of life in the cities, which will only pull us father away from traditional America but is necessary for us to thrive on our own terms. — Joshs

I don't think internal isolationism will work. Many of those liberal cities are located in conservative states. It also isn't the way I'd like to see it go. I think the values represented in the Republican party these days are those of a fairly small group of exceedingly ideological politicians supported by corporate business. The issues I raised in the OP are those I think, hope, might bring moderates back into my party.

The Democratic coalition between intellectuals and blue collar workers which was successful for 50 years worked because the great majority of people in both the cities and small towns were less educated workers. That coalition can’t be put back together in an era when the thinking of educated urbanities has moved so far away from that of the rest of the country. There is no language in common anymore, not on science, ethics, faith or economics. — Joshs

I think you're overstating the case, but I don't necessarily disagree. I think the right description of what you call "less educated workers" is just working people. They're the people who the Democratic party needs to bring back. They belong with us. I just want to make sure they're not being kept out by issues and political strategies not central to our political philosophy.

Interesting proposals and points, but all of them are mainly focused on national issues and how to convince American working-class families.

I wonder if foreign policy is relevant to those eventual voters and motivates them to vote for one or the other. — javi2541997

That's a good point. I didn't mention it because I'm not sure any foreign policy position would have much impact on an election here.

Palestine's sovereignty. I guess Democrats are pro-Palestine, but I don't know if it is an important matter amongst the voters — javi2541997

I think Palestinian sovereignty is the right thing, but it is a fraught issue here in the US and it's not clear to me who it helps. Both Jewish and Arabic voters tend to vote Democratic. One or the other is going to be pissed off no matter what you do.

European Union. Democrats see us as friends or pals, at least. Republicans are clearly against us, and they flirt with Russia. Maybe it could motivate the voters that their leader prefers European values—we are not perfect. I know. I know.—rather than Putin's old-school hating style of everything and everyone. — javi2541997

I'm sure Putin is happy with the election. Trump has made his lack of support for Europe and NATO clear. Again, I don't think this would be a major factor in whom Americans would vote for.

UK. Republicans seem to flirt with Brexit and isolating them even more. This is a terrible idea, and the Western world should be united, not chopped into chunks. A person who believes in a united world should vote Democrat. — javi2541997

I think both Democrats and Republicans are moving in an isolationist direction, probably Trump more than Biden. An example - Biden's policy focusing on manufacturing jobs here in the US. All and all, I think globalization has been bad for American workers, but, again, I'm not sure who is helped or hurt politically.

But there would be a notable improvement in the quality of search results. — Banno

I certainly recognize that philosophers attempt to address everything and anything that was, is, will be, actually or potentially, in reality and in illusion, for all persons and other things, be they mindless or omniscient Gods or somethings else; and philosophy incorporates logic (math and language), poetry (aphorism), fiction (thought experiments), physical objects and theoretical impossibilities, and more in order to do its work. — Fire Ologist

This is a good summary. I think I’ll save it and use it in all the various future discussions of what philosophy is. Don’t worry I’ll give you credit when I do.

This would be a good OP idea. Philosophy as practice, and perhaps praxis. When I try to explain to friends why I do phil., I usually wind up talking in those terms, but not with much clarity. — J

I have put this idea out there in previous discussions. The way I phrased it is that philosophy is a way of becoming more self-aware about how we think, how our minds work. I've never gotten much of a response to the idea. I'd be interested in a discussion, but I doubt many people would participate constructively. I think it would just devolve into another "what is philosophy" thread.

But philosophy, as also zen, is a practiced discipline, a way of looking, more than a theory in a book. — unenlightened

Funny you should mention that. After I wrote the post you responded to, I realized that what philosophy is for me is a practice, like meditation or exercise. — T Clark

I'm surprised how hard thinking about philosophy as a practice, my practice, has struck me. I've been dancing around the idea for a while, but I never put it in those words. It changes things, makes it more three dimensional.

A shame. I was hoping that it would be something to do with the software thinking "A -> not-A, A, ⊨ not-A" invalid. — Banno

If the search function started refusing to process low quality philosophy, most of us here on the forum would be in trouble. Not you and me of course.

I'm not expecting an answer. — Banno

I would expect it is the Coriolis force. The program was probably written in the northern hemisphere.

Hey carful there, we are in danger of reaching an understanding if not Gob forbid, agreement! — unenlightened

I'm sure we must have agreed on something in the past 7 years.

No. No it isn't. It is a speculative slur, at this point. Bob is right. — AmadeusD

Alas, if only denial made it true. As far as I can tell, you and Bob don’t even care if it is.

But philosophy, as also zen, is a practiced discipline, a way of looking, more than a theory in a book. Burn all the books and start again fresh. That's what we do here at pf, apart from burning all the books. — unenlightened

Funny you should mention that. After I wrote the post you responded to, I realized that what philosophy is for me is a practice, like meditation or exercise.

I started a thread once - "You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher." I had to cajole Jamal to move it out of the Lounge and back to the main page where I'd originally placed it.

A Zen Koan
The Zen master Mu-nan had only one successor. His name was Shoju. — unenlightened

So, am I Mu-nan or Shoiu?

Well, on one view critiques of philosophy along the lines that it is "useless," might be taken as a complement. It is among the few pursuits that is rightfully "pursued for its own sake, making it "higher" in another sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don’t find philosophy useless at all. I use it all the time.

Are you saying that that evidence, that I expounded, is enough to convict someone of sexual assault??? — Bob Ross

I don't know and you don't know whether he would have been convicted. You didn't "expound" any evidence at all. You just waved around vague allegations. Did you read anything about the trial outside of the NY Post? Fact is, you don't care whether or not he did it. My hypocrisy accusation stands.

I'm done.

The evidence wasn't not very solid: — Bob Ross

I don’t think you have any good reason to say that. Face facts - You support a man who treats women like shit, including sexual assault. The man who’s been chosen to lead this country, the country that is so much better than all the other countries in the world, that is so superior and morally advanced that it should export its values to other, inferior countries.

I don’t generally hold it against people who support Donald Trump, but the hypocrisy here is awful.

I honestly don't think he would get convicted of rape nor sexual abuse in criminal court given that evidence. — Bob Ross

I can't be certain, but I think there was a good chance he would have been convicted. It wasn't taken up as a criminal matter because it happened in the 1990s, if I remember correctly, and the statute of limitations had run out. Let's face facts, calling him a rapist is an accurate description.

I didn't realize he was actually convicted in court, and got off of a rape charge on a technicality. — Bob Ross

Note - it was a civil, not a criminal, court. He wasn't found legally guilty, he was found liable and had to pay money.

Three stages of self - Damasio — Gnomon

Thanks for the link. Note that the figure you provided is not Damasio's, it's one of the other figures from the linked article.

True, and I recanted that claim to Fooloso4: Trump is definitely a sex offender. There's too much evidence to support this for me to overlook. — Bob Ross

Sorry. I missed your change of mind.

my primary argument is against setting philosophy up as some sort of pinnacle of human inquiry. I don't see it as all that special. For me, it is an exercise in self-awareness - more a practice than a study.
— T Clark

This is the question of the first part of the OP, and your answer may well be true. What we want to know, I think, is whether phil.'s lack of specialness is because a) the Q recursion isn't special to phil. at all, or b) this kind of recursive argumentation is indeed merely a gotcha! generated by a type of formalism we can look at and understand. — J

To start, could you run "Q recursion" by me again. I looked at all the examples in this thread and it's still not clear. Are you talking about "This statement is false?" Or, maybe, I like cake and I know I like cake and I know I know I like cake? Or maybe what @Leontiskos has been talking about, e.g. I say "Philosophy requires a conscious mind" and he says "'Philosophy does not require a conscious mind' is a valid philosophical statement."

I love philosophy. I just don't think it should be approached with reverence. At bottom, my understanding of the world is based on my own experience. It's reasonable to call me a pragmatist. My interest in science and my career in engineering have had a big influence on that. Philosophy is meant to be useful. It isn't a game, although it's fun to play. Well, maybe it is a game, but it's a useful game.

The final thing I find interesting about these quoted responses is that they all shy away from the idea that phil. is distinguished by its subject matter. — J

Hmm... I hadn't thought about that. Is philosophy distinguished by its subject matter? I'll have to think about it.

It would help if you could give some concrete examples of highfalutin language in philosophy. — Joshs

I was specifically talking about the language being used in this thread about the nature of philosophy, e.g. "Is philosophy the highest discourse." It's true, I am a fan of ordinary language philosophy (OLP), which, now that I think about it, is sort of a high-falutin way of saying plain, everyday speech. Maybe I'll start a thread "High-falutin philosophical language," but they'd probably put it in the Lounge. By the way, it appears that the correct spelling is "high-falutin," - one "l", although whether it should be a single word, two words, or a hyphenated word is unclear.

Many of my favorite philosophers (Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida) have been accused of writing in an obscurantist style. It has been suggested that this is a deliberate strategy to attract a cult-like following of initiates into what appears to outsiders as a secret society. — Joshs

No, I wasn't thinking about that at all. I do admit I have little patience for unnecessarily difficult language. Supposedly Einstein said that if you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't really understand it. II know that if I can't put an idea in my own words, I don't understand it. Now that I think about it, I don't think the ideas we bounce around in philosophy need to be all that nuanced and subtle. Clearly you don't agree with that.

more precise than the engineering vocabulary associated with your profession. — Joshs

Hey! Don't you dis engineering.

FWIW, this simple diagram is from Research Gate*1, and not directly related to Damasio or Seth. It does show Mind & Body as separate categories (boxes) within the general concept of subjective Self. — Gnomon

I don't know about Seth, but Damasio's model of the self is based on specific anatomical structures and neurological and mental processes. It's not that I think the model you've shown is wrong, but it is not comparable.

By high-fallutin do you mean technically complicated language, such as that used by educated professionals? Or do you mean bullshit masquerading as insight? — Tom Storm

There's no reason it can't be both. In this particular case I think "bullshit masquerading as insight" is probably a bit strong. How about gilding the lily.

"You are presupposing a conscious mind, but I deny a conscious mind." So has this person stopped doing philosophy? Nope, in fact they haven't. The philosophy goes on. — Leontiskos

We're in a circle. We can keep this up all day long with no hope of reaching a conclusion.

The move from philosophical to scientific language is toward a thinner, more conventionalized and less synthetic account of the same or similar phenomena (Nietzsche vs Freud, Merleau-Ponty vs embodied cogntivism). — Joshs

I'm not sure. I'll have to think about that.

I would add that empirical concepts are in their own way ‘high-fallutin’. But what does this mean? — Joshs

As I noted, for me, high-fallutin language grasps for an exalted level of significance, which I reject.

I do take the hard problem seriously, and (unlike T Clark) I would not use either of their accounts to argue against that. Seth says he's interested in the 'real' problem of consciousness, not the hard problem. — GrahamJ

I wasn't presenting Damasio's work as the correct view on consciousness, I was using it as an example of a type of description. I asked

So, how, if at all, does this type of description fit into this discussion? — T Clark

Do you guys prefer to read a lot of books at the same time? Or do you prefer to focus on one, finish it, and then move on to the next. I'm trying to do the latter because it lets me immerse myself a bit more, but I have my moments of weakness! — Jafar

I tend to read fiction one book at a time, but non-fiction; generally science, sometimes philosophy; I often read in episodes. If I really want to read a book that is slow going or takes contemplation, I'll read 20 pages a day and then let it sit while I read other things. That way I'm less likely to get discouraged and it lets my thinking about the book percolate while I'm not paying attention.

To start, before I get more specific, I agree with just about everything you've said. And I'll add this - my primary argument is against setting philosophy up as some sort of pinnacle of human inquiry. I don't see it as all that special. For me, it is an exercise in self-awareness - more a practice than a study.

In my view, philosophy in its most general sense refers to a mode of discourse melding comprehensiveness, unity, and explicitness. — Joshs

I like this. I used to say that metaphysics is the set of phenomenological rules we reason, argue, by. Although I still think that's a good way of thinking about it, most people don't look at it that way, so I've taken a different approach.

So a psychologist can become more philosophical, more ‘meta’, by moving from cognitive psychology to philosophy of mind. Does this mean that philosophy is a branch of psychology? No, because there are many philosophers who define psychology as an empirical discipline, the scientific study of mental phenomena in all its guises and levels of focus ( cognition, emotion, sociality, biological ecology, neuroscience, genetics, etc). — Joshs

I even agree with most of this, all but the "no" part. Yes, I overstated my case for rhetorical purposes by calling philosophy a branch of psychology, but that doesn't mean that isn't a defensible way of looking at it. Maybe you can see from the things I've said - I come at philosophy from a psychological point of view, i.e. why I do it, what I use it for. As I said previously - self-awareness. My discussion with @Leontiskos started when I questioned his statement that philosophy has no presuppositions. At that point, I started thinking about what the underlying assumptions of philosophy might be. The ones I came up with were psychological. The example I used was the assumption, what Collingwood calls an "absolute presupposition," that there is a conscious mind. You can't have philosophy without a conscious mind, which is a psychological entity.

Those philosophers who don’t consider their mode of inquiry as belonging to psychology, who believe that disciplines like philosophy of mind (and writers like Daniel Dennett) ‘psychologize’ philosophy, argue that psychology forces us to confuse the primordial underpinnings of being and existence with the contingent results of a science. They may argue psychological concepts like ‘mental’ , ‘physical’ , ‘value’ and belief’ are confused derivatives of more fundamental truths that no longer belong to psychology, but are instead ontologically prior to it. — Joshs

A couple of thoughts about this. It seems to me that the confusion of primordial underpinnings with science mostly come about by philosophers, including us, who come up with philosophical positions which aren't consistent with what we know from observation, including science. One prime example of this is the whole hard problem of consciousness. Some say that it is a problem that will never, can never, be resolved by a scientific approach. When I describe to them the kind of work psychologists, including cognitive scientists, are doing, they dismiss it out of hand.

Also, you point out that some say "psychological concepts like ‘mental’ , ‘physical’ , ‘value’ and belief’ are confused derivatives of more fundamental truths." I would put it differently. I think I can make the case that philosophical concepts like "truth," "ontology," "objective reality," and "morality," are high-falutin, often confusing, ways of talking about human thinking and experience.

I'll say here at the end what I said at the beginning, my main argument is against the arrogance of holding philosophy up as more important than it is.

You may be right. Would you say he's reductionist wrt consciousness? — frank

He's a cognitive scientist, and he is primarily interested in the neurological and structural aspects of mental processes, including consciousness. I often use him to make my case against the "hard problem." Does that make him a reductionist?