|
@Meaningness | |||||
|
Philosophy is bunk. Pretty much. meaningness.com/eggplant/ratio… pic.twitter.com/KVv66XBtOb
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ontolotree
@aphercotropist
|
29. sij |
|
Seems like your conception of philosophy is pretty rationalist. A good deal of philosophy is practical...
|
||
|
|
||
|
David Chapman
@Meaningness
|
29. sij |
|
Which do you have in mind?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Matt Guttman
@RealtimeAI
|
29. sij |
|
If I just say that my philosophical treatise isn’t philosophy, it won’t be. Pretty much.
|
||
|
|
||
|
David Chapman
@Meaningness
|
29. sij |
|
I hope that when you read it, you will agree that it’s not philosophical!
|
||
|
|
||
|
James
@yarizari
|
29. sij |
|
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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
James
@yarizari
|
29. sij |
|
Among the skills: conceptual analysis, ontological remodeling, attention to (in)consistency. Even armchair theorizing is arguably useful if the alternative is suppressing curiosity.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Arlyn Culwick
@arlynculwick
|
29. sij |
|
Nah, looks like only rationalism is bunk.
Philosophy that is empirically testable isn't bunk.
|
||
|
|
||
|
David Chapman
@Meaningness
|
29. sij |
|
What do you have in mind as examples of philosophy that is empirically testable?
|
||
|
|
||