The problem with philosophical tradition is that it’s predicated on textual and scriptural interpretation. It’s verbal not operational.
But words don’t mean things, people mean things and they satisfy the demand for unambiguity, consistency, correspondence, and the possibility – or they don’t.
So the entire program seems to have ended somewhere between Godel and Kripke: The reliance on set logic rather than operations, on non-contradiction vs operational possibility, on ideals rather than distributions, and ignoring costs, rather than accounting for them.
In other words: Performative truth can only consist of satisfaction of demand for decidability in the context (which, like math and measurement, determines the degree of precision – scale dependence).
Continental Philosophy still survives because the continent is still trying to find a bias to human experience, rather than a scientific description of human experience that we can determine is correct given its complete explanatory power for all experience.
I have no idea why philosophy departments still survive and I doubt they will outlast the next generation.
But people don’t want to pay the cost of learning the sciences, so they stay with literature, which remains somewhat intuitionistic. It’s hard to teach people to reason (or calculate) entirely. We all want to intuit rather than reason. (avoid the cost). But the discount on thought results from malinvestment in what is intuitionistically accessible, (cheap to test), and creates high costs over time. The investment in learning independent of intuition, then using it to explain intuition, produces long-term returns. So the cheap route, as always, produces its own limits (ceiling). Cheers
