Philosophy is bunk. Pretty much. https://meaningness.com/eggplant/rationalism#philosophy …pic.twitter.com/KVv66XBtOb
Better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning and meaninglessness; self and society; ethics, purpose, and value.
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
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
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| 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 | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Philosophy is bunk. Pretty much. https://meaningness.com/eggplant/rationalism#philosophy …pic.twitter.com/KVv66XBtOb
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!
I have read much and already found much that I consider philosophy. Maybe we just use that word differently. But I don’t know what else you could call a (rational / reasoned / argument-based / logical ?) discussion about different ways of approaching thinking itself.
I do find you mostly to be attacking straw men. But, Deutsch helped me jettison a lot of this semantics stuff. We’re trying to make sense with each other. If someone calling themselves a “rationalist” wants to defend a logical contradiction, they’re just being *irrational*.
In Deutschian terms, Chapman is largely criticizing foundationalist/justificationist accounts of rationality. Doesn't generally help to read him as a critique of CR. I think if there's a critique of CR there, it's that it doesn't attend to how people actually reason in practice
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
Oh, that’s a nice way of explaining it, which clarifies the matter for me! However, see this thread where I complain that CR isn’t specific enough to be helpful:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1222610654139256832 …
David Chapman added,
This is very helpful! Is it from a forthcoming Eggplant chapter? This bit from Kegan does seem very Popperian, but I guess CR would have to explain how the conjecture and criticism processes are getting micro-implemented in everyday practical action.pic.twitter.com/v4Xvu8NqoY
Not sure I understand? I take CR as boiling down to “the important thing is solving problems, which you do by finding a better way of dealing with them”; but that’s not really very helpful. And also, it isn’t even true:pic.twitter.com/rCdKvOMfgP
The analogy to Kegan I was driving at is that there are "problems" that seem to point more directly to the need for ontological restructuring. Unless an alternative is available, we tend to hold on to the prior paradigm -- and should, provided we don't deny there's a problem.
That makes sense… how does it relate to CR?
I'm thinking of it in relation to paragraphs like these, both from Deutsch. (But he may be misreading Kuhn here, and I may be overdrawing the analogy.) I have to get back to work, but will think harder about this before my next @LetterWiki reply! Thanks for engaging.pic.twitter.com/KxVRmLJwSq
I like the first paragraph, and I think that he’s right that Kuhn treated paradigms as more rigid than they actually are.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.