# Sellars-LLM generality affinity belongs after the defensive sections **Scope:** Placement of the Sellars/generality material in the generating philosophy paper (Sections 0-3 vs later) The structural affinity between LLMs (maximally general systems) and Sellarsian philosophy (discipline of maximal generality) is the paper's constructive/positive claim and belongs after the defensive sections (Sections 1-3). Possible home is a prompting section (Section 4), where the affinity motivates the question: given that LLMs are suited to philosophy by their nature as general systems, how do we get them to do it? The Bitter Lesson is background context for why LLMs are general, not itself a claim in the paper. Sellars' definition may still appear earlier if it does independent work, but the affinity observation is for later. **Rejected:** Sellars-LLM affinity in Section 1 (as response to authorship challenge) — the observation is positive/constructive, not defensive, and deserves its own moment after the ground has been cleared. Sellars in Section 3 (supporting Pigliucci) — would subordinate the insight to a challenge-response.