i don't honestly feel i need to undermine anything until i encounter a version of the concept that doesn't collapse under its own weight
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
you haven't looked very hard! the last time i brought this up & referred to a simple SEP entry as a foil, you read some lines, ideologically summarized it, "people tell you who they are," and that was that. what doesn't collapse under its own weight with such raw uncharitability?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
if it's uncharitable to regard as nonsense a giant pile of work that wants to talk about free will after opening by refusing to define it because they can't, then i guess i'm uncharitable, yes
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
*intellectually dishonest and hasn't done the appropriate reading required--due to prior biases & annoyances @ otherwise real problems in the literature [from the autistic writing style, to "unfortunately i do not have the space to address the best objection to my view, etc.]
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
that's a bit much it is in absolutely no way my responsibility to perform an exhaustive literature search until i've convinced myself of a position nobody can point me to literature about that isn't talking directly past the point
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
it is, but you don't have some huge obligation to fulfil it. it's just a weak epistemic norm if you want to better know what you're actually talking about
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
i know enough to know people talk nonsense it doesn't help that nobody addresses the core incoherence of the concept, that either choice is caused and therefore unfree or it's uncaused and therefore even less free than if it were caused, other than by pointing at this handwaving
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
i don't need to spend the rest of my life reading Aquinas to be familiar enough with bullshit handwaving about the ontic literality of the Christian creator deity to know that it's bullshit same deal here
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
you don't have to meet such a specific and extreme requirements, but you're not even meeting bare minimum standards for intellectual honesty. just declaring things to be bullshit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
i don't have to eat the entire pile of bullshit to know it's bullshit opening with a refusal to define your core term is more than enough and it's always shit like this, like people excitedly waving at the SFWT like it didn't *bypass the question of the thing's existence"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
like, how much of a diet of facile trickery am i supposed to put up with here before i make an evaluation
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.