A secret to sanity when talking politics/policy: refuse to engage debates expressed in terms of purposely-vague terms like "socialism" "feminism" "justice" "nationalism" etc. Rephrase in terms precise enough to allow careful precise analysis. Perhaps engage w/ those accept this.
-
I'm probably late to the philosophical party, but when I read: “This [words = maps] bridges the old division between “is” and “ought”.” I *actually* – not exaggerating – stood from my chair and said, "holy shit." Coz: holy shit. I could hear the sound of my philosophy changing.
That makes me so. happy. to hear :). Few things are more satisfying than a good viewquake! Another post from John’s blog gave me the same “holy shit // am I late to the party?” feeling. Dunno if you’ll find it as valuable as I did, but just in case:https://everythingstudies.com/2017/05/29/the-good-the-true-and-the-undefined/ …
-
-
Glad someone liked that, it hasn't got a lot of attention. In general I wish philosophy would focus less on finding perfect answers that don't exist and instead work more on developing more usable versions of its good ideas.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm really glad I learnt about this blog last night – and especially its posts on Erisology, coz I had a frustrating brush with twitter dot com discourse yesterday. ( i dunno, you be the judge of this & its replies: https://twitter.com/ncasenmare/status/1041029851573092352 … )
This Tweet is unavailable.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.