Srap Tasmaner

Duh. Even when speaking loosely, and explaining how I'm using the term "analytic philosophy" as I go, a way of using the term I believe to be consonan...

I mostly agree and said as much -- it's what I called the resentment at the story level -- but there is still something to it, and the story is suppos...

I tend to think this is how it's gone historically, though I'm lazy about the idea. In olden times, thinking about stuff was philosophy. Once you get ...

To speak candidly, it looks to me now like you're a victim of a certain sort of iconoclastic philosopher. For me, it was Nietzsche, and then later Wit...

Some philosophers being poseurs (among them Hegel, Wittgenstein, and Derrida) does not entail almost all the academic philosophy in the English-speaki...

So are you critiquing the form of my statement or its substance? In my dust-up with @"Olivier5" they absolutely do not. Sweeping generalizations are a...

Something a lot like this is actually one of the core cultural values of what we've been calling "analytic philosophy", its cooperative spirit. Someti...

So when I complained about you suggesting that a huge chunk of modern philosophy is just a bunch of poseurs, your response was that surely some philos...

Oh yes, I see. No, I wasn't at all saying that whether it's true or not it's not "acceptable" and that whether it's acceptable is more important. Of c...

I literally do not know what you mean by this. Is "Analytical Form" a term some people use? I just don't know what it means. And again I wasn't defend...

Big shrug. I think it was kind of a thing early in the 20th. I think Russell thought it was what he might defend against ordinary language philosophy....

See, now an example of a sweeping generalization would be "All philosophers are nice people", and you know that would be an indefensible thing to say....

And I don't understand how you think this is any kind of defense.

No it really doesn't. I wouldn't find this an acceptable way to talk about "modern philosophy" or "Marxist philosophy" or "feminist philosophy" or "Ge...

I am genuinely puzzled by this, because it sounds like the sort of anti-intellectualism I expect to find anywhere but on a philosophy board; it sounds...

My first instinct is that this is not a question we're likely to be able to answer. By "society" I assume we want something maximal, all people now an...

Not following your question here. Those were the examples I threw out not to hide the differences between meanings of "think" but to highlight them: s...

First off, you have seen Geri's Game, right? Second, white absolutely has an advantage. The initiative is a real thing and white has it. The question ...

I am genuinely glad to hear that. I seriously hesitated about talking about the story itself as resentful -- other people's lives, especially here, ar...

Yes it did. And thanks for reminding me about the chess thing, which I am honor-bound to comment on.

My post from 9 days ago.

Oh I'd assume you're right about Davidson -- I was thinking of formal semantics in general, especially as it models itself on the relative success of ...

Well it's not like it was hard to guess what you were talking about! Well I'm a person you know. I have a family and a job and everything. I can psych...

I meant: whether I respond absolutely isn't a judgment on whether a post was interesting or relevant or right. People say stuff and sometimes I have s...

It looks like dueling fantasies to me. I know the story doesn't come out and tell us what social class each belongs to, but we have one who buys -- an...

One of my old philosophy professors did run for Congress. Oh, and it turns out he's running for Senate.

Sorry, I just don't get the point of this question. (See, @"MSC" this kind of thing.) Is somebody being asked to decide what 21st century philosophy w...

My main reason to post is if I have something to say -- that's not entirely or even mostly, I think, a judgment about whether the post is good or inte...

Ha! Suck it, real life! @"MSC" and I are having two conversations simultaneously.

I got you. Thing is, I wish I had never engaged with the guy. It was a mistake. I do that. Now and then I let my frustration get the better of me. Dis...

Sorry, I had no idea. I ignore a lot of things and wasn't singling you out or anything. I mean, feel free to tag me like you did here, but I may not a...

I was just wondering why you tagged me or that post or both. Sorry, all I meant was "huh?"

?

Maybe you should start someplace like this or this. There's lots of really solid material online about what you're trying to understand.

Btw, your thread should be called "Does Analytical Philosophy Have a Negative Social Value?" just to make it clear it's not about anything at all.

Back when I played tournament chess, I noticed that we amateurs were always a generation or two or three behind what was going on in chess at the high...

Very broadly, I would say Grice and Lewis both approach the issue vaguely as an ethologist might; we are, after all, not the only creatures that commu...

I'm going to make a single point and then leave you to your crusade. By all accounts, Bertrand Russell was one of the founders of what came to be call...

I'm partly indulging and partly testing my nominalist inclinations.

Agreed. (Doing philosophy while at work is tricky.)

Never mind, you're working through the truth values to determine that.

But the T-sentence doesn't give you the interpretation; it is the interpretation; or it is one way of expressing the interpretation. The question is h...

The semantic paradise -- what I described elsewhere as all of us speaking an idealized Tarski-model language -- is destroyed, destroyed I tell you, by...

What is happening here?

If I understand you correctly, we're talking about conceptual dependence here. That I can deal with. It even has a natural connection to Frege's satur...

Are we done now? Should I bother working on the rest of the article? By the way -- I haven't intended to be advocating for Grice against Davidson, not...

I was thinking of the passage that begins with Diogenes: he uses intention to pick out first meaning and then says we lose nothing by ignoring intenti...

Then what did you make of Davidson relying on it finally in his definition of "first meaning"?

I think we're talking about almost every cognitive scientist since Chomsky.

I don't have the text in front of me, but insofar as (1) talks about relationships, it's just going to be compositionality: we have a recursive engine...