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 …
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @MenanderSoter and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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 -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @Meaningness and
Anyway, don’t wanna ramble on too much since we’ve already covered most of this ground, but if you haven’t already, you should definitely check out the school of philosophy called “pragmatism” which may intersect with some of your concerns, goals. Thanks for discussing w us.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Yes, I know pragmatism. It could be helpful for you to consider the possibility that I have read a lot more philosophy than you have.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @MenanderSoter and
Alright, I just thought since it seemed to interact with a lot of the same claims, and have a practical orientation, even practical self help in the gist you intend, that it could have have passed you by. I’ve only read a moderate amount, just trying to be helpful.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @Meaningness and
I assume I must have had a different interaction w pragmatist philosophy than you did, since I don’t find it to be “comprehensively bunk” either factually, or in a way irrelavant to practical rationality. But that’s alright, no worries.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
End of conversation
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.