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
-
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knowing every trick they need) nor place the story in context later when portions of its landscape are shown to be outdated or wrong.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