I've given it a cursory reading and it seems that "introspection is useless/misleading" is a core assumption. Am I correct?
Conversation
Replying to
What I don't buy is the dichotomy between "human consiousness is 'special'" and "there's nothing home". plenty middle ground.
2
Replying to
Yes I can even understand the claim that "experience is radically different than how we are able to describe" i.e non-intentional
1
Replying to
I'd read it as "there is no inside view"? Which I can't say for sure but distinction between inside/outside view is useful.
1
1
Replying to
So for me to claim that is to willfully throw away a useful tool of understanding. But maybe better reasons follow.
1
1
Replying to
I see how it may be useful to critique any residue "ghostliness" or errors that arise from grammatical structure (the "cogito")
1
Replying to
And I have no problem with skepticism regarding identity and ego, or even subject... I guess we're just left with perception.
1
1
Replying to
I kind of want to see a philosopher deny the "I" with such consequence that they purge it from their language and thought.
2
1
Replying to
Just to show that it's possible, and to demonstrate an alternative mode of thought.