METAPHILOSOPHY - A Philosophizing through logical consequences

Please don't just downvote based on karma or other values, as this is still something new. Downvoting might not be beneficial for ongoing discussions where we could potentially inspire each other without stopping in unnecessary mid-discussion.

Feel free to discuss for days; it's better than rushing to judgment.

Is this supposed to sound a little crazy? I'm reading it with the assumption that it might be some fully formed field of expertise with its own jargon etc that i haven't heard about yet...

You're seeing a thing and trying to get it across and, as I can tell from checking your profile's karma, not communicating in a way that's making people feel like they're learning or understanding something valuable to them from your words.

If one is able to philosophize rationally and objectively, it is akin to positioning philosophy on par with physics and mathematics. Where physics and mathematics have modular formulas that can be synchronized among physicists and mathematicians.

So... philosophizing rationally and objectively elevates philsophy, in some abstract ranking space, to become equal to physics and math. In that ranking space, philosophy is implied to have been below math and physics before, or else nobody would be lauding having brought it to their level.

In that ranking space, physics and maths are composed of operations that are repeatable between practitioners of the field. Repeatable operations like any machinist should be able to build an exact machine from a sufficiently detailed set of blueprints.

But the machinist doesn't have to be the inventor. They might, but they don't have to. The skills of doing a thing and the skills of deciding what thing to do are discrete. Solving a test, versus choosing which problems are the appropriate difficulty to include on the test. They're at completely different levels. Call those levels insight and execution, maybe. The skillsets are separate. Under scarcity pressures, we often try to get both skillsets in the same individual, like in hiring and careers. But outside of scarcity pressures, like in many hobby organizations and recreational collaborations, people who are missing insight or missing execution can nevertheless thrive and contribute.

I think philosophy, physics, and mathematics are already all the same, in each comprising the separate insight and execution layers. Is there some cognitive or intellectual difference between a straight-A philosophy student, and the philosophers they study? Is just knowing about philosophy sufficient to actually do it?

Like how we spend years painstakingly copying other peoples' words and letters to develop the handwriting skills to write something brilliant, or even to write something mundane but unique and personal, math and physics and philosophy all have some amount of sloggy grind at the very beginning before you can start making art with them as paints upon experience's canvas.

And regarding synchronized among physicists and mathematicians... Some elements of philosophy can already be synchronized as well, as evidenced by our ability to make up grading systems for philosophy classes. Maybe that's not a good way to teach philosophy... but then again, who said it was a good way to teach physics or maths?

Then philosophy, with its many logical consequence formulas, is also able to synergize scientifically (and even surpass) with physicists and mathematicians.

What does "synergize scientifically" or "surpass" mean in this context?