Dan Harris

More like somebody should hit something.

lol

Yeah this exact thing made me feel indignant about the charge that analytic philosophy has a problem with unnecessary formal notation that does more harm than good. I mean, yes, but also: Marxists heal thyselves!

I definitely considered this reading.

When I took a course with David Harvey on Capitol vol2, I was pretty surprised by the number of Carnaps in there.

New antirealism just dropped.

Would prefer to run this move in reverse thanks.

Studying aerodynamics by looking at how wings move in zero-gravity vacuums.

Sandra Lapointe, Bolzano and the Analytical Tradition - PhilPapers In the course of the last few decades, Bolzano has emerged as an important player in accounts of the history of philosophy. This should be no surprise. Few authors stand at ...

philpapers.org/rec/LAPBAT

I like your poster!

Having made this website, I find it hard to disagree. This (from Carnap’s intellectual autobiography) is another candidate, in part because it was maybe responsible for saving the lives of Carnap and a number of others. Some of those other early-20th century congresses seemed pretty cool too.

You have to admit that this (probably made up) number is nice, though.

The past tense in the title is bold! (I am looking forward to checking this out.)

The Sphex story: How the cognitive sciences kept repeating an old and questionable anecdote The Sphex story is an anecdote about a female digger wasp that at first sight seems to act quite intelligently, but subsequently is shown to be a mere automaton that can be made to repeat herself e...

Important context: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.....

Time to write a paper defending an iteration principle about scolding: If one is scoldable for doing x, then one is also scoldable for scolding someone for doing x. “The SS Principle” doesn’t seem like a great name so I propose calling it “the tsk-tsk principle.”

I’m actually only seeing people scolding people for scolding people for posting in poor taste.

I hadn’t remembered that. It’s been a while.

So rather than hit the usual low-hanging fruit (unknowable truths about the past, say), Williamson tries to go all the way to the canopy.

Right, sorry, I didn’t put that clearly. I think what’s radically anti-Dummett about epistemicism is that it posits unverifiable truths in one of the domains where we would be *most* tempted to think that the metaphysics depends on the epistemology in a way that might motivate verificationism.

The one that is most interesting (to me at least) is the epistemicism about vagueness view, which reads as an attempt not only to refute verificationism, but to stake out a position as far away as possible: a proof that there are truths we can’t verify.

Williamson’s whole career is one big attempt to refute Dummett.

Yes

In general I think there are a lot of interesting relationships between the vocal and the lurking people on social media.

To be clear, I didn’t have you in mind!

On the one hand it’s clear that many of the people who post a lot are following different norms than offline. But meanwhile there are lots of others who don’t accept these different norms are looking on in silent horror and sending around screenshots of the onlines. To them it looks unhinged.

You’re joined in this rabbit hole by Ludwig Wittgenstein by the way. www.marxists.org/reference/su...

We also say things like “I harmed myself” and “I lost my mind” etc. (not to mention “my soul”), so I’m skeptical that these locutions tell in favor of one way of relating self to body/mind vs. another. And possessives are pretty flexible in the relations that they express.