I quite like this definition of #philosophy, what do people think?pic.twitter.com/6f7PSy74k1
-
Do you worry that the focus on "fundamentality" expressed in this passage makes it difficult to say that some (many?) issues having to do with applied ethics, race, disability, gender, personhood, and (more generally) philosophy of X sub-disciplines count as philosophy?
I think that typically those things are pretty fundamental to human conduct (reading that as something like: of deep and abiding significance) and its only arbitrary demographic and ideological features of who has been doing professional philosophy that has obscured this fact.
-
-
Let me try a different spin on the question: Do you worry that powerful people well-established in the traditional discipline will interpret "fundamental" in such a way that it will make it harder for philosophers working on projects that both of us like and think are important?
-
And if so, is that a reason to dislike the account of philosophy in the passage you're pointing out? (I'm not sure on either of these, but I guess it makes me nervous. I'm worried that I ought to be worried.)
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.