Given the very broad range of views on what, if anything, counts as a natural kind [1,2], it would seem that if I am being incoherent, philosophy as a whole is being incoherent, and if knowledge cannot even exist if there are no natural kinds, then we have not even taken the first steps to knowledge!
What happens in practice, of course, is that we propose that the world is a certain way based on our experiences so far, without being hung up on the question of whether we have truly identified the real 'natural kinds' and are talking about them. We seek to validate, or refute, extend and/or replace these opinions, through further study of the world, in a process that is the opposite of the skepticism that you seem to think my position implies.
If you find it helpful to think that 'natural kind' is a natural kind, then go ahead, but the fact that you know something about the world (a premise I am not disputing) does not make your assumption about natural kinds a metaphysical necessity and a prerequisite for knowledge. After all, we have, over the millennia, held many now demonstrably-false ideas about what sort of things there are in the world, yet that has not prevented us from learning more.
One other thing: you wrote "putting aside the revolting notion of revoking my individuality like some collectivist..." Firstly, note how you are presenting an emotional reaction as if it were an argument. Secondly, if you had paid attention to my previous post, you would have seen that I am arguing that our individuality should not be put aside on account of the arguments in the article. Before you start bandying words like "incoherent" and "insanity", you should be a little more careful with your own arguments.
What happens in practice, of course, is that we propose that the world is a certain way based on our experiences so far, without being hung up on the question of whether we have truly identified the real 'natural kinds' and are talking about them. We seek to validate, or refute, extend and/or replace these opinions, through further study of the world, in a process that is the opposite of the skepticism that you seem to think my position implies.
If you find it helpful to think that 'natural kind' is a natural kind, then go ahead, but the fact that you know something about the world (a premise I am not disputing) does not make your assumption about natural kinds a metaphysical necessity and a prerequisite for knowledge. After all, we have, over the millennia, held many now demonstrably-false ideas about what sort of things there are in the world, yet that has not prevented us from learning more.
One other thing: you wrote "putting aside the revolting notion of revoking my individuality like some collectivist..." Firstly, note how you are presenting an emotional reaction as if it were an argument. Secondly, if you had paid attention to my previous post, you would have seen that I am arguing that our individuality should not be put aside on account of the arguments in the article. Before you start bandying words like "incoherent" and "insanity", you should be a little more careful with your own arguments.
[1] https://iep.utm.edu/nat-kind/ [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/#MetNatKin