*cough* @Meaningness *cough*
-
-
Replying to @drossbucket
Um, I’m having trouble with this because I’m not sure where to start. This is slightly scary because The Eggplant is supposed to cover a lot of the same material (much more briefly) and if BCS can’t explain it for you in a book probably I can’t explain it in a few pages :(
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Part of the problem is that BCS’s presentation is situated within a particular discourse (“The Palo Alto Synthesis”) that is now a lost world. Influential at the time but now forgotten.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
I also come out of that world, and I may not recognize the extent to which I take for granted its problematics—that is, what it considers important questions to ask. Those questions were mainly overlooked before the Synthesis, and have been mainly overlooked since.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
The Synthesis was pointing to the whole cognitivist/analytic tradition and saying “look, the emperor has no clothes,” and everyone before and since has deliberately chosen not to notice this.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Once you notice the nudity, you can ask “why isn’t he cold, what mechanism keeps him warm, this is mysterious” but you tend to get distracted by “why is everyone pretending???” and get annoyed by it. Part I of Eggplant is “look, no clothes,” and I’ve had to work hard to be polite
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
and as much as possible to work out the rest of the book which is “what keeps him warm?” and “let’s use that mechanism to make clothes adequate for winter in the Sierra Nevada mountains”
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Putnam was writing just as logical positivism collapsed. His "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" is taken (with Kuhn) as its official tombstone. It was a huge deal at the time, because "no clothes!" but in retrospect it's terribly confused.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Two Dogmas is Quine, right? Think I read that once, not that I remember a thing about it. Never read Putnam.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh right sorry I’ve got the two of them confused. Similar flavors.
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.