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
-
-
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 @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 -
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @lifeneoned and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @nosilverv and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes… I think the main problem is probably just that most of it is missing because I started an enormous project expecting to be able to work on it full-time and finish in ~3-5 years, & have actually had 10% time to work on it. So I’m amazed anyone gets anything out of it at all
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @lifeneoned and
I don’t intend to clarify my method because it’s irrelevant to the reader. The book works (or not) to change the reader’s way of being as well as it does (or doesn’t) regardless of how it was composed.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @lifeneoned and
The book is supposed to have a section here explaining why existentialism is wrong. Haven’t got to it yet.https://meaningness.com/existentialism-muddled-middle …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes - 9 more replies
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.