Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
Meaningness's profile
David Chapman
David Chapman
David Chapman
@Meaningness

Tweets

David Chapman

@Meaningness

Better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning and meaninglessness; self and society; ethics, purpose, and value.

meaningness.com/about-my-sites
Joined September 2010

Tweets

  • © 2020 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 25 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      John Nerst Retweeted John Nerst

      Poll reaction thread: Interesting. Before I felt my own answer oscillates between "maybe a little" and "no" depending on how generous vs. defiant I feel at the moment. However, thinking about it over the last 24 hours has yielded a more worked out position: 1/5https://twitter.com/everytstudies/status/1021774117505298433 …

      John Nerst added,

      John Nerst @everytstudies
      Would be interesting to see the spread on this: Should ideas with potentially harmful political implications be held to a higher intellectual standard?
      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
      Show this thread
    2. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 25 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Moral criticism of ideas is legitimate, but must be kept apart from intellectual criticism. Whether something is true and/or logically coherent is a different question from whether it's a good idea to adopt and spread it. Erasing the distinction is dishonest and corrupt. 2/5

      1 reply 3 retweets 8 likes
      Show this thread
    3. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 25 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      A critical word in the original question is "intellectual". I give "no" as an answer not because I don't think moral criticism is legitimate but because I don't think intellectual criticism for non-intellectual reasons is legitimate. 3/5

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      Show this thread
    4. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 25 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Consistency is key. You should evaluate all ideas against the same intellectual standard, but you can also evaluate them against the same *moral* standard and have some come up short. That's consistent. If you're *upfront about it* it's also honest and moral. 4/5

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Show this thread
    5. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 25 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Given this, I'm not sure how to interpret the poll, or what I should answer myself. What I do feel sure about is that intellectual and moral criticism should be explicitly and completely separated to avoid contamination and corruption of discourse. Too bad that won't happen. 5/5

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
      Show this thread
    6. Nanda‏ @frostinmay 25 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @everytstudies

      I might have misunderstood this question! I answered something like "should ideas with potentially harmful consequences be vetted extra carefully", which seemed clearly true, and the "political" aspect a sub-case.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 25 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @frostinmay

      It does sound clearly true when stated like that, but it also seems clearly true to me that we're always obligated to believe what is most likely to be true, and desirability has no legitimate place at that table. I'm struggling with how to solve this.

      4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
      David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 26 Jul 2018
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @everytstudies @frostinmay

      I don’t think we’re obligated to believe anything. When reasons are conflicting and no action is required, it is better to have no opinion. I think it is especially better to have no opinion (factual or ethical) in morally consequential or difficult cases.

      8:42 AM - 26 Jul 2018
      • 1 Retweet
      • 11 Likes
      • entirelyuseless Dan listens to the sudden reconfiguration Nick Rob Alexander John Evans Corn Woman 🌽 Adam Strandberg dopaminedream Derek. JUST "Derek. JUST "Derek. JUST "Derek. JUST
      2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. John Nerst‏ @everytstudies 26 Jul 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @frostinmay

          Quibbles about the word obligated aside, I do think that when we assign levels of credence to propositions, we're obligated to do it without reference to desirability. "Believe" in this case doesn't refer to selecting only one idea to back 100%

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 26 Jul 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @everytstudies @frostinmay

          I agree… and I don’t think we have any obligation to assign levels of credence either. (In situations where one does have to, I agree that the fact/value distinction is important.)

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. 3 more replies
        1. dopaminedream‏ @dopaminendreams 26 Jul 2018
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @everytstudies @frostinmay

          David do you think there is ever a time when reasons are not in conflict with each another? I don't think they achieve homeostasis quite like how are body does. We constantly are reformatting our mental hard-drives and re-writing what we think is logical and applicable.

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
          Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
          Undo

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2020 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Imprint
        • Cookies
        • Ads info