I’m spending weeks reading many subfields in analytic philosophy, defensively. All comprehensively nonsense which I’m not going to discuss, but they do treat the phenomena I’m writing about, so I feel I have to be sure I’m not missing anything important.https://twitter.com/PaperFury/status/1027666554677166080 …
-
-
You're a better man than I. (When a field is nonsense I start skimming. Then I start skimming really fast, faster, ... done.
-
This demonstrates that you are smarter than me :)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'd be interested in an example.
-
The past few days have been been spent reading papers on “vague objects,” a/k/a “The Problem of the Many.” It’s a direct confrontation with nebulosity, with a complete failure to think about it sanely. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I thought analytic philosophy was a move away from that tendency? Instead of trying to *define"?* "free will", or "justice", see how people actually use the term to find the contours of its meaning. Thus, people like Wittgenstein and Austin moved away from Russell and co?
-
That has not been the main tendency of the past half century.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Preach. I'd love to hear some roasts some time.
-
I’ve learned the hard way that explaining why wrong ideas are wrong never works (by itself). You have to show a better alternative.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Currently doing the literature on ontic vagueness, eg. Frustratingly misses the point while analyzing important phenomena.
End of 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.