I'm not even sure he means it, or perhaps just has a very idiosyncratic definition of philosophy, because he cites philosophers to supposedly useful ends all the time. One example, I quickly found:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1203342162991046657?s=20 …
-
-
Replying to @ResonantPyre @GeniesLoki and
So, my sympathetic reading of his statement is that he actually does appreciate some philosophers and their work but makes a relatively arbitrary and idiosyncratic demarcation of the stuff he finds useful in their work, deeming it not philosophy, but something else.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @GeniesLoki and
he is entitled to do this, he can use words how he likes, but I'll just say it poses a significant barrier to communication for people being exposed to him for the first time and burns unnecessary good will with people that might otherwise be receptive to his points.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @GeniesLoki and
it really wouldn't matter for any random person, but as someone mildly interested in his meaningness project after reading it a little, finding some bits useful, I would like to see it not arbitrarily cut off from other spheres, disciplines like philosophy
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @GeniesLoki and
R.P. Retweeted David Chapman
to be fair, I may misinterpret him! but I think the interpretation he might intend sounds extremely unintuitive:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1258136166877945857?s=20 …
R.P. added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @GeniesLoki and
Unfortunately, no one owns words, and there is no reasonable interpretation of either of his claims "philosophy is comprehensively bunk" and "I don't do philosophy" which is true.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @aphercotropist @GeniesLoki and
Yeah, I just try to be a little sympathetic in general with semantic disputes over complex words. Regardless of what he intended, you are correct that standard reasonable interpretations would make his statement false.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @aphercotropist and
“If we were imaginary philosophers…”pic.twitter.com/k0zJMdnkUZ
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @ResonantPyre and
If not in the conventional sense, perhaps the Hadot sense?pic.twitter.com/Kp31d9W4yW
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MenanderSoter @ResonantPyre and
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
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
This whole discussion, as I’ve pointed out elebenty nine times already, is of the form “X is *really* a Y,” which is pointless in nebulous cases (and I am a nebulous case of a philosopher at the very best). There is no fact of the matter.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @MenanderSoter and
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
I consider what I’m doing “self-help for nerds.” Much less fancy than philosophy!https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1258123725309788160?s=20 …
David Chapman added,
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @MenanderSoter and
Perhaps some of the conceptual conflict arises from the parts of philosophy that actually try to collapse the distinction between practical and theoretical rationality, like pragmatism. They might, in part, actually be reaching for some of same goals (tho I’m not totally sure)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.
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