Good thread with some critical reflections on The Hoax, but I don't really understand this comment. For one thing, I know at least one of the authors is similarly hostile to analytic philosophy. For another, analytic philosophy generally takes common sense as a starting point.https://twitter.com/kjhealy/status/1047481691047186433 …
-
-
Right. Analytic philosophy often tries to show that we have at best a choice among outlandish ideas. It uses paradoxes, aporias, etc. to do this.
-
Right, analytic philosophy has rules, a formal rigor, that one at least has to master before one can play the game. Now one can claim (I'd claim it) that these rules actually make it easier to be unphilosophical about first principles, as well as genuinely extreme when it comes
-
There is another, perhaps minor but not entirely insignificant point. There is an assymetry between the position of “philosophical” scepticism, even in relation to familiar objects and assurance about very unlikely ones. For example, MCTaggart scepticism about the reality of
-
time is quite different in kind from, say, belief in ghosts, unicorns and witches. For one, it actually does not deny our “normal” experience. I would argue that these articles are much close to the belief in ghosts & witches than to the philosophical examples that were mentioned
-
Yeah i should have been more thorough and said “start from outlandish assumptions *and never reconverge with observed reality*”.
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.