What a strange thing to choose to be certain about. The conception being attacked here was provided as contextual support to a case I was making for the pragmatic theory of truth, so isn't it a bit of a non-sequitur to randomly attack this particular tidbit as not philosophy? But if we must...A_Seagull wrote: ↑December 13th, 2018, 5:44 pmSeems to me that to label these as 'blunders' is nothing more than naïve propaganda. It certainly isn't philosophy.
Seems to me that to label these as naïve propaganda probably reveals more about an individual's subjective conception of what philosophy covers, than any degree of Arun Gandhi's naivete. They certainly are connected to major philosophical conversations on ethics and morality in the past, since they are basically just one Anglican priest's personal formulation of Kantian categorical imperatives.
Outside of deontology, off the top of my head I can recall these ideas being related to positions taken by the stoics vs Epicureans, Socrates on knowledge, Aristotle on virtue, Dennett and Putnam on the fact/value dichotomy, George on economic rent, Aquinas on worship, Habermas on political communication. Sure, I'd have no objection if you were to complain that "The Seven Blunders of the World" is a prosaic presentation -- but it's the same philosophical ideas. Complaining that they're not philosophy when presented in this form is like saying an off-duty cop is not a cop.
You are free to take an objectivist position and make a case on whether these are correctly described as blunders in the general case, but it doesn't seem to me like the most constructive approach to just label stuff you don't agree with as naive propaganda.