On top of that, there are a lot of philosophers that deal with really detailed real-world case studies. Many philosophers of science for example get very in depth into the history and methodology of the specific sciences they're investigating. Something LW really fails at.
-
-
Replying to @aphercotropist @sonyasupposedly and
Yes; but they were 22 and so they hadn’t had time to learn anything besides undergrad physics yet
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @aphercotropist and
So they thought everything worked like undergrad physics. Kinda dumb but we were all young once
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @aphercotropist and
I still have concerns about gatekeeping, unevenly applies standards, or dismissal based in part on some non-standard usage of terms. The project might not have been an ivory-tower project, if that makes sense. But possibly used as straw target for academic in-group signaling.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @Meaningness and
I for one could not give less of a shit about rats reinventing old philosophy without sufficient genuflection to the ancestors or whatever. I'm just frustrated that all most rats want to do is sit around and talk about stuff at great length (which, in retrospect, duh)
4 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @sonyasupposedly @meditationstuff and
Philosophy is comprehensively bunk. The value in studying it is that if you don’t, and if you think about abstract stuff, you inevitably reinvent it. Fortunately, for every attractive philosophical idea, someone has already done the work of figuring out why it’s wrong
6 replies 3 retweets 53 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @sonyasupposedly and
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect that you - like many other rationalists - don't have enough engagement with philosophy to unequivocally call it all bunk - often this is unknowingly engaging w/ philosophy. Meaningness is great but it IS philosophy.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @lifeneoned @sonyasupposedly and
“Philosophy” is not a well defined term, ofc, so whether or not something counts depends on context and purposes. Calling my stuff not-philosophy, even though it overlaps in topics, serves specific well-thought-out purposes (imo)
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @lifeneoned and
I sort of think of Meaningness as being meta to philosophy in the same way that meditation is meta to the contents of thought. Saying it's not philosophy is like saying meditation is not thinking. The object-level philosophy is invoked to explain meta-level pattern and nebulosity
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @Meaningness and
Gonna side with my boy Jeremy here, for any folk understanding of philosophy (the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language - straight from wikipedia), meaningness (discourse on meaning) def. seems to fall under it
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
This is the fallacy of “field X claims to be the authoritative discourse on topic Y, therefore it is where you go to learn about Y.”
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @nosilverv and
False dichotomy - it's not 'either phil is the only authoritative discourse' or 'phil is totally bunk and useless.' Philosophy makes significant contributions to meaningness, many of which you don't address in the book. The phil method would also help.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @lifeneoned @Meaningness and
method would help bc you often make claims that aren't very well defended or defined. E.g. 'always obvious' that meaningness is 'nebulous' and 'patterned.'could be reading you uncharitably but I didn't see a good justification/clarification; even in chapters where you defend this
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 18 more replies
New 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.