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 …
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
But in order to decide that a philosophical claim is not logical, don't you have to (on some level) actually do philosophy?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
You have to evaluate it & see if to works & pinpoint why it doesn't. On that level, yes.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I think I get you. You're only interested in studying claims up to the point where you decide they don't make sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
Yes. And to understand the ideas that are still circulating. Once clear it doesn't make sense, don't want to delve deeper.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
Not for its own sake. I'd want to know every detail I could of a framework that made sense coz interesting - evo psyche.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
See - I wish the evo-psych people read more philosophy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I know you do. There's a difference between 'evo-psych people' & people interested in evo psyche among other things
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.