Sloterdijk is rapidly becoming one of my top 3 favorite thinkers. — csalisbury
Regarding Dennett, I agree that Consciousness Explained is very bad in most of its positive explanatory aspirations. — Pierre-Normand
. I mean if I can get a perfectly good introduction to the thought of some guy instead of having to drudge through countless books then I'll take the former route. — darthbarracuda
You can't ever know if you're getting a "perfectly good introduction" to the thought of some guy unless you actually read that guy for yourself. I'd rather think for myself and make up my own mind than have someone else do it for me in tortured "academese." — Thorongil
In my view, if you can't summarize a position into a textbook, if you can't convey your ideas without falling back into obscurantism or a kind of "sophisticated" philosophy, then it's probably bullshit or at least needs refinement. — darthbarracuda
That has been my experience. I tend to believe now that reading large amounts of secondary literature is actually positively harmful not only to your enjoyment, but to your understanding as well. — The Great Whatever
I'm not a secondary source; I give my own opinions. — The Great Whatever
Why it is not possible for a piece of secondary literature to express what its author meant as, in part, explanation/appropriation of the text commented upon and, in part, criticism and elaboration on it? — Pierre-Normand
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.