Wait what? Wouldn't that make the first philosophy you encounter a perma-crippling infection rather than an inoculation?https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/810281385852276736 …
-
-
Replying to @vgr
When learning philosophy one is simultaneously exposed to many philosophies, none of which is then individually first.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robinhanson
well, I'd argue that most are in fact exposed to just one philosophy -- that of parents -- that then constrains future breadth
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Sure, in 1 sense of word "philosophy". I was talking mainly about academic philosophy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson
there is no way to separate the two. Even the most ivory tower philosophy traditions have roots in specific cultural milieus
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
No way to completely separate, but surely the distinction is useful.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robinhanson
Yes *if* you can show there is a source of philosophy of = or > power to lived experience, itself an old philosophy problem
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr @robinhanson
Plato tried to argue that for ideal forms, others for math, there is general idea of a priori analytic http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr @robinhanson
Point is that the idea that philosophy is self-justifying as an independent foundation for itself... itself needs justification
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
fwiw, in acad terms, I'm a phenomenologist of the Ryle variety. Default skeptic of a priori analytic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Ryle …
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.