And this is a great paper (TBH, all of his are), though it definitely reflects the conditions under which it was written (as all philosophy does)
-
-
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @evantthompson and
Also, Bill Waldron! (But this is getting very dude heavy! We’ll have to keep that in mind)
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @evantthompson and
can you believe in no-self and also illusionism? I mean I guess you *can*, but does it make any sense?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
-
At each moment, there's a mental event with misrepresentational content, with said content including the misrepresentation that the event is owned by a self
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @ericlinuskaplan and
This is such a tricky issue, as I believe in a persisting biological process, but I also deny the existence of selves as ontological posits. Selflessness generates a kind of phenomenological distancing from the solicitations that are usually present in the world. 1/2
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @NeuroYogacara @evantthompson and
I don't see why no-self theorists can't continue to speak of *persons* existing and acting and being subject to illusions. They are just rejecting a certain metaphysical account of what persons are, aren't they?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @keithfrankish @evantthompson and
I think that you’ll like the position that Evan defends in the book, Keith. I think it’s a real challenge to anyone who is not pedaling not-self as a soteriological commitment. Most folks who push the view are trying to anchor to descriptive science, and Evan pushes back!
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.