It is not difficult to tell when a character doing bad philosophy in a book is due to the author being bad at philosophy, vs the author making a point about the character. Quit letting authors off easy
-
I’d forgotten about that as an example. I read it as: Author intends Ro to be fake but hasn’t shown the reader what uncompromised metaphysical/anthropic reasoning is supposed to look like in this world, so it’s not clear
It is interesting to consider the “rationalfic angle”: that in this subgenre the reader need not be shown how argument and reasoning works “in this world” because such things ought to be universal and the reader ought to know...
-
-
But I don’t really buy it. The author still needs to define “the playing field”; the landscape of reasoning tools they have used to derive the story world and characters...
-
Without this, the reader can neither learn what they need to to understand (if they don’t begin the story knowing every trick they need) nor place the story in context later when portions of its landscape are shown to be outdated or wrong. It’s a cop out
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.