I think there's enough different things going on under the heading of philosophy that "philosophy is comprehensively bunk" is hard to justify. There's a lot of bunk philosophy (a lot more than is ideal) but even some of that is useful, and a lot of the rest is pretty good.
-
-
If not in the conventional sense, perhaps the Hadot sense?pic.twitter.com/Kp31d9W4yW
-
I don’t know Hadot’s work. Some philosophy is “therapeutic” in intent, and there are relevant connections between some of that and what I do. I’m explicit about the philosophers who influence my work, and my gratitude to them:https://meaningness.com/further-reading
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I wouldn’t try to argue that the book is philosophy in some grand sense, just that it has philosophy, does discuss and reference philosophical claims, and also make factual judgements about them. For example, “the metaphysical errors are implicit”, in that part you’ve shared.
-
It would seem to me that to talk of a metaphysical error is to do philosophy, to do metaphysics, whether we like it or not. There are philosophers who made their careers largely on saying other philosophers metaphysical claims were wrong, and on correcting them.
- 5 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.
Why Heidegger is so important for our current cultural crisis of meaning; & also for re-thinking obsolete concepts of what we are are do.
Inspiring introduction by