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)
-
-
Yes it does clarify, thank you. But I'm also a little more confused now. You make many ontological & epistemic claims in the book. If you don't clarify and justify these claims, how do you defend your assertions then? Or are you not making assertions?
-
Inasmuch as I make assertions they are incidental. The aim is to help the reader change their relationship with meaningness, and thereby shift to a more effective and enjoyable way of being (thinking, feeling, and acting).
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It doesn't feel like intention is the relevant factor. I might not have intended to kill a deer but still have done so in my riding the car.
-
Like I'd give your not doing philosophy but what is being generated def. feels like it falls under the abstract philosophy header even if it is different from current and perhaps ancient traditions of philosophy
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
You ask the same questions, and in some cases give the same answers /for the same reason/
-
You argue against philosophers, you engage with them within the bounds of their profession and using their methods. Your goals aren't alien to the profession, how to live a good life is one of the oldest questions of philosophy. You are a philosopher.https://mobile.twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1258173929006395393 …
End of conversation
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.