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.

This is the legacy version of twitter.com. We will be shutting it down on June 1, 2020. Please switch to a supported browser, or disable the extension which masks your browser. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

  • 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. Lulie‏ @reasonisfun 16 Mar 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Lulie Retweeted Lulie

      The first step of 'existing knowledge' is necessary — that's where problems come from. And problems are what thinking consists of. It's impossible to think about something without some model. "Model-free" just means your models are less about the form.https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1106853147417423872?s=21 …

      Lulie added,

      Lulie @reasonisfun
      Replying to @context_ing @Malcolm_Ocean
      One can't get knowledge from ignorance. What's happening in negative space drawing is not being model-free, but *using a better model*. And that's what's happening in philosophy (&improv, etc.) too. It feels like being model-free because it's using inexplicit/intuition models.
      2 replies 1 retweet 14 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Lulie‏ @reasonisfun 16 Mar 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      👆Where #CriticalRationalism and other fallibilist philosophies like #MetaRationalism may differ. (one of the few places they seem to be in actual disagreement? @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean)

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Malcolm  🌎cean‏ @Malcolm_Ocean 16 Mar 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @reasonisfun @Meaningness

      I don't see a disagreement here! My explicit knowledge of both philosophies is a bit past "I've read Beginning of Infinity and Meaningness". Possible I'm misunderstanding either here. Also possible I'm using them both fluidly in such a way that they don't FEEL they disagree 😉🙃

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    4. Jed‏ @mindmeanings 27 Oct 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Malcolm_Ocean @reasonisfun @Meaningness

      Interesting! Think it does part with critical rationalism, e.g. embracing paradox with different models in tension versus the notion each model is solving a different problem (crit rat). The philosophical implications are quite different. Contrast McGilchrist & Deutch excerpts:pic.twitter.com/jwsKncb2Tu

      2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
    5. Jed‏ @mindmeanings 27 Oct 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @mindmeanings @Malcolm_Ocean and

      And McGilchrist elegantly describes the unspoken phenomenological encounter (being). Deutch would agree that we don’t have the words to capture the experience (inexplicit knowledge), but imagines one day we will, through conjecture & refutation leading to objective progress

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
    6. Jed‏ @mindmeanings 28 Oct 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @mindmeanings @Malcolm_Ocean and

      Whereas McGilchrist views attempting to quantify our encounters via explicit concepts, detracts from the quality of the experience (over-relying on the left hemisphere).

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    7. Lulie‏ @reasonisfun 28 Oct 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @mindmeanings @Malcolm_Ocean @Meaningness

      Both can happen. The way culture is currently set up, trying to rationalise inexplicit stuff does typically suppress parts of it. Crucially, in Deutsch's view—cf. other rationalists—these two sides are *equal* (should be listened to as equal, full participants). Suppression bad.

      1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
    8. Jake Orthwein‏ @JakeOrthwein May 3
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @reasonisfun @mindmeanings and

      But in the Deutschian view, the inexplicit and nebulous can in principle be made explicit and precise. In the McGilchrist view, this can’t be done without loss of meaning. Fallibilism doesn’t get you irreducible nebulosity.

      2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
    9. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness May 4
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @JakeOrthwein @reasonisfun and

      (I don’t know about CRs specifically but) this distinction between ontological nebulosity and epistemic uncertainty is the central thing rationalists (other brands at least) don’t understand (and often seem to actively resist understanding for emotional safety reasons)

      3 replies 0 retweets 19 likes
    10. Jake Orthwein‏ @JakeOrthwein May 4
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun and

      I think the two get confused in CR because it says we could be (and likely are) wrong about any fixed system of rationality. Nebulosity w/r/t any particular construal can then be chalked up to fallibilism. OTOH, this from Popper seems ~consonant with your view.pic.twitter.com/6IzPOPTunx

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
      David Chapman‏ @Meaningness May 4
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @JakeOrthwein @reasonisfun and

      Hmm, I don’t understand this passage—maybe I would need to read more of the preceding

      10:29 PM - 4 May 2020
      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Jake Orthwein‏ @JakeOrthwein May 5
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun and

          First pass at an explanation of this:pic.twitter.com/KSKPWqxGwm

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness May 5
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @JakeOrthwein @reasonisfun and

          Thank you for the translation! I think I understand you better than Popper :)

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        4. 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

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