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
-
-
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
that relies on a manifestly contestable view of causality. here's a different view of causality: substances/"agents" possess causal powers rather than belonging to a linear chain of causality. they have dispositions toward some effect. now your dichotomy has already collapsed
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
'self-determined' decisions are now possible without either preferring any background view in physics, whether the universe is generally casually determinate or indeterminate to x degree.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
the hashtag literature addresses your "core incoherence"--which is a philosophy 101 concern--and has been long considered and debated long before contemporary analytic & cont. philosophy. see? this is exactly what i'm talking about
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
you uh cannot actually "God take Philosophy 101" me into reading so much handwaving on this i start thinking in terms of it i immunized myself to that by, y'know, taking philosophy courses, and actually going to them
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
you said this last time ("i've already gone deep already" etc). i'm not telling you take philosophy 101, i said your concern was philosophy 101 tier & has already been talked about & debated endlessly & directly. you said the exact opposite was the case--when it is not the case.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
by "immunizing" yourself, you mean walling yourself into the most contemptible form of intellectual dishonesty you can imagine--as an over-reaction to the bullshit the academy can spew, that last part we can agree on. which is no justified basis for dismissing what you do not...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
either like, understand, or lost patience for (a distinct 'you' problem) as just handwaving, bullshit, gibberish. no. you're being intellectually dishonest here, and you should admit that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
i'm really not, and that's profoundly insulting
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
good. maybe if it's profoundly insulting for you, you will reflect on this for once
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.