@UncredibleHallq Some analytic philosophers do discuss Buddhist phil, and some even specialize in the intersection (Mark Siderits e.g.).
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @UncredibleHallq
@UncredibleHallq I found Siderits so tedious that I didn’t finish reading his book. But yeah, he’s probably reasonably accurate.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @UncredibleHallq
@UncredibleHallq Regarding the “self” question, it’s central to Buddhist philosophy partly because the scriptures are so unclear that >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@UncredibleHallq > numerous divergent interpretations are possible, and those are also all unclear, and figuring out how they relate >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@UncredibleHallq > to each other and to the texts has kept thousands of intellectuals busy for thousands of years. It gets very complicated1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@UncredibleHallq Personally I think if there’s any value in that stuff at all, it is in trying to provide a conceptual interpretation for >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@UncredibleHallq > for meditation experiences that are difficult to talk about. If you’ve had the experiences, the phil has some relevance.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@UncredibleHallq If you haven’t, my guess is it’s completely meaningless—not because it’s so profound but because it’s so confused.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@UncredibleHallq Sorry if this sounds negative and unhelpful! I’m overdue for dinner :-)
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @UncredibleHallq
@UncredibleHallq Good luck! I hope you find what you are looking for :-)0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of 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.