i'm sure it's great to be a rigorous thinker who builds a powerful system of thought with each component meticulously checked before being added so that the whole edifice just bludgeons you into submission with its overwhelming correctness but tbh i just can't be arsed
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
Word. Systems of thought are, almost by definition, fixed; reality is fluid. It is impossible for a system of thought to accurately reflect reality more than twice a day.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @StevenBrust @chaosprime
Wait, if reality does not lend itself to a systematic understanding, isn’t that functionally almost identical to the “there is no truth” thesis? What is an academic discipline if not a system?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @StevenBrust @chaosprime
Where do you end up drawing the line between a system of thought and a method of thinking? Feels a little like splitting hairs. Scientific method—okay, a method. Economics? Surely a system. That offshoot of economics, dialectical materialism?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FirstClassHack @chaosprime
Systems are inherently schematic, which means they impose theory on the facts. Method--at least, a correct method--deduces theory from the facts.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
you die doing method or live long enough to see yourself having created a schema
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.