Folk in #philosophy a question for yinz. I always think of the canon as stuff there’s a normative expectation that someone finishing an undergrad degree (or at about that level) be familiar with. So it’s primarily a teaching category. Does this accord with your sense of the term?
-
Canon: Things to which a randomly selected philosopher at a PhD granting institution would say "yeah, that makes sense"; not canon: Things to which..."what the hell is that?!"
I dunno how seriously you mean that! I don't think a Phil Compass review article on implicature is canon in any typical sense of the term, yet would be by the definition you just gave.
-
-
I mean it relatively seriously. My guess is that there are two or maybe three parallel issues here: 1) canonical author; 2) canonical issue; (and maybe canonical writing style). Up through early 20thC the focus is author-centric, post it becomes issue-centric, I think
-
e.g., it's fine if you never read Gettier, but you should know the issue. But there's probably a list of a dozen, or maybe 20 people you're expected to know pre-20thC
End of conversation
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.