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?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @lifeneoned @nosilverv and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @nosilverv and
Yea I’d be super interested to see that section. I haven’t read the whole book yet but your approach seems very similar to several existentialist views
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lifeneoned @nosilverv and
I suspect you are laboring under the misapprehension that meaning must be either objective or subjective. Obviously I am not endorsing an objective story, and existentialism is the salient subjective one, so you mistake my story for that.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
Meaning is neither objective nor subjective:https://meaningness.com/objective-subjective …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @lifeneoned and
somehow I feel like I completely agree with you although I would use very different words to describe it my best boil-it-down would be > meaning comes from mattering which I like to say, although I think you might not like it. or I would say that meaning is a decision,pic.twitter.com/5fJ9dqYlog
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @sonyasupposedly @lifeneoned and
Yes this was a central insight of Heidegger’s. The philosophical mainstream got this backwards
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 4 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.