There's a lot more than that. Rationalists don't do their due diligence when criticising other philosophy (see eg this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qmqLxvtsPzZ2s6mpY/a-priori …) or otherwise understanding the literature, they are very unrigorous and handwavy (see the same post)
-
-
If you're saying 'phil is bunk' just for the effect of that phrase - to make people move attention away from phil or something- then you're misusing language; if you don't affirm the semantic content of a sentence, but are only saying it to redirect attention, make that clear!
-
otherwise, you're exploiting language, treating it as a means of manipulation rather than communication.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is the kind of thing that really frustrates me about rationalists. Like... treating the meta level as its own object level doesn't make there *not be* a meta level that is meta. Like... rhetorical hyperbole never seems to parse as such, why is that?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.