Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Ontolotree 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Meaningness
Seems like your conception of philosophy is pretty rationalist. A good deal of philosophy is practical...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
David Chapman 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @aphercotropist
Which do you have in mind?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Matt Guttman 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Meaningness
If I just say that my philosophical treatise isn’t philosophy, it won’t be. Pretty much.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
David Chapman 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @RealtimeAI
I hope that when you read it, you will agree that it’s not philosophical!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
James 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Meaningness
I want to disagree, but I suspect our disagreement would be more semantic than substantive. So to reframe the issue: I think there are philosophical "know-hows" that are worth developing, even if philosophers tend to use them in unhelpful ways.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
James 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Meaningness
Among the skills: conceptual analysis, ontological remodeling, attention to (in)consistency. Even armchair theorizing is arguably useful if the alternative is suppressing curiosity.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Arlyn Culwick 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Meaningness
Nah, looks like only rationalism is bunk. Philosophy that is empirically testable isn't bunk.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
David Chapman 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @arlynculwick
What do you have in mind as examples of philosophy that is empirically testable?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"