{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025857519788918207, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036939313984168864, 'mean_word_length': 4.340845070422535, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to Wettersten’s Reply

On p. 516 Wettersten (IN PRESS) says: “Tuomela suggests on the first page of his response that my review is not about this book [Tuomela, 2007] at all.” This statement badly distorts what I say. To wit, I say: “Mostly the review is not directly about the book at all but rather pushes some general (meta)philosophical views of the reviewer.” W. also says this of me: “he holds that a proper review must conduct a discussion of the reviewed book solely of the conditions set by the author.”But this is not true of my view; of course a reviewer can criticize the approach of the book under review. I never suggested that that is not possible. The problem is that, to judge from his review and his reaction to my response to him, W. has not understood my philosophical method in the book at all. Perhaps he has not really studied the book, as he does not really make concrete references to the book. Let me take up a point that he thinks applies to my book: my central accounts and elucidations suggest to him that my “central aim is to identify correct or best meanings of concepts or uses of language” and that “this has always been the aim of essentialist methodology.” My response is that of course one should have as precise concepts as possible to give philosophical accounts of whatever one is concerned with. I am not in my analyses concerned primarily with meanings at all but of reality, but as real phenomena must be couched by in terms of some conceptual framework some analysis of meaning and of concepts is needed. Yet I strongly oppose the suggestion that the analysis of meanings is a central aim in my book. I am interested in the book in certain real social phenomena, for example, collective thinking and acting, social institutions, and the like, and wish to create some new concepts and arguments for studying these phenomena. I am not in a central