Seems like your conception of philosophy is pretty rationalist. A good deal of philosophy is practical...
-
-
-
Which do you have in mind?
- Još 5 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
If I just say that my philosophical treatise isn’t philosophy, it won’t be. Pretty much.
-
I hope that when you read it, you will agree that it’s not philosophical!
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I want to disagree, but I suspect our disagreement would be more semantic than substantive. So to reframe the issue: I think there are philosophical "know-hows" that are worth developing, even if philosophers tend to use them in unhelpful ways.
-
Among the skills: conceptual analysis, ontological remodeling, attention to (in)consistency. Even armchair theorizing is arguably useful if the alternative is suppressing curiosity.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Nah, looks like only rationalism is bunk. Philosophy that is empirically testable isn't bunk.
-
What do you have in mind as examples of philosophy that is empirically testable?
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.