Oh god, yes! Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Meant that, having realised pomo or theology is illogical, my interest is only in its effectshttps://twitter.com/christianjbdev/status/847236474399477762 …
You have to evaluate it & see if to works & pinpoint why it doesn't. On that level, yes.
-
-
Then as long as ppl are making those claims, that error, it can be addressed w/out further reading of philosophy/theology
-
I don't care how a later work comes away from the Nietzschean influence & leans more towards Heidegger.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think I get you. You're only interested in studying claims up to the point where you decide they don't make sense.
-
Yes. And to understand the ideas that are still circulating. Once clear it doesn't make sense, don't want to delve deeper.
-
Not for its own sake. I'd want to know every detail I could of a framework that made sense coz interesting - evo psyche.
-
But ppl are saying it is anti-intellectual & reductionist to only want to understand enough to get core principles & claims
-
sorry to come back, but the point was quite the contrary. I was just pointing out that you misconceived the core
-
i gave context so Foucault and his relation to science could become clearer, so it would be clear that the
-
root of his thought (what you say you were concerned with) could *never be* anti-realist or relativist.
-
It wasn't just a matter of looking at the fine print, but of misconceiving (like FT people) his whole philosophy
- 1 more reply
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.