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.
-
-
Some philosophy also has that intention, and inasmuch as such philosophy is cognitively foregrounded, I have no problem with including my stuff with it. That’s why I said the point of “bunk” was to shift attention.
-
Ah. I think some clarification of your approach could be helpful then. I'm all for your project, think your work is valuable, but it's hard to parse in many ways b/c your method is idiosyncratic. Also, so far I haven't been able to distinguish your approach from existentialism.
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
you need to read existential feelings by matthew ratcliffe
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
me bringing my (rationalist) philosophical brain to Meaningnesspic.twitter.com/uKCMk8jpy7
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.