“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)
-
-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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?
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
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 -
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
Hmm. Arguing whether C is “really” a Y is pointless unless Y is well-enough defined that there’s a fact of the matter. Is ethnomethodology “really” cogsci? Extensive overlap in subject matter, totally different aims and methods. Both fields would say “nope, not cogsci.”
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @nosilverv and
I do agree it's pointless and you can have good discussions without such a pindown, but considering your original point is to argue that what you are doing is *not* philosophy, I don't see how you can effectively do that without implicitly be trying to pin it down.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @krzhang @Meaningness and
I agree with the pointlessness but let's say I define "P" to mean "the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language". Would you say that Meaningness belongs to "P"? If not, why not?0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.