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. sonya! supposedly?‏ @sonyasupposedly May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      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
    2. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      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
    3. jeremy‏ @lifeneoned May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      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
    4. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      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
    5. Jake Orthwein‏ @JakeOrthwein May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      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
    6. Rival Voices ❁‏ @nosilverv May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      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
    7. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @nosilverv @JakeOrthwein and

      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.”

      1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
    8. jeremy‏ @lifeneoned May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      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
    9. jeremy‏ @lifeneoned May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      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
    10. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @lifeneoned @nosilverv and

      Yes! This is precisely the point! It is because I am not doing philosophy that I have no reason to do that. If I were doing philosophy, I would. If I were doing (analytic) philosophy and didn’t clarify and justify, I would be doing (analytic) philosophy badly!

      1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
      David Chapman‏ @Meaningness May 6
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @lifeneoned and

      My purposes are quite different from those of philosophy, so my methods are quite different, and the relevant evaluation criteria are quite different. Does this clarify how it is that I am not doing philosophy?

      1:56 PM - 6 May 2020
      • 6 Likes
      • yes Nick Hay Kabelo Moiloa sonya! supposedly? jeremy no-thing-ness
      3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. jeremy‏ @lifeneoned May 6
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @nosilverv and

          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?

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness May 6
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @lifeneoned @nosilverv and

          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).

          3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
        4. 14 more replies
        1. New conversation
        2. Rival Voices ❁‏ @nosilverv May 6
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @lifeneoned and

          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.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. Rival Voices ❁‏ @nosilverv May 6
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @nosilverv @Meaningness and

          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 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        4. 3 more replies
        1. New conversation
        2. Arbutus Tree‏ @aphercotropist May 6
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @lifeneoned and

          You ask the same questions, and in some cases give the same answers /for the same reason/

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        3. Arbutus Tree‏ @aphercotropist May 6
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @aphercotropist @Meaningness and

          Arbutus Tree Retweeted David Chapman

          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 …

          Arbutus Tree added,

          David Chapman @Meaningness
          Replying to @sonyasupposedly @lifeneoned and 9 others
          Yes this was a central insight of Heidegger’s. The philosophical mainstream got this backwards
          0 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
        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