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
-
-
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 @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
you need to read existential feelings by matthew ratcliffe
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Is that this? https://oxfordmedicine.com/view/10.1093/med/9780199206469.001.0001/med-9780199206469-chapter-002 …pic.twitter.com/E2yO3sUQOk
-
-
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.