News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
I’m a graduate student in philosophy at a well-known terminal MA program who is applying to PhDs this fall and…
Fascinating! Thank you, I will look at this. I had studied metaphysics under Timothy Williamson before I started my PhD…
This is exactly the approach I take in Knowledge and its Place in Nature, Oxford University Press, 2002
Do you know of anyone who’s taken the approach you describe, in philosophy or the sciences? It seems interesting.
I suspect evolutionary and behavioural perspectives are left seriously underappreciated in this approach to epistemology. Reichenbach’s claim that epistemology must…
Just want to follow this conversation. Thanks
Then my question is how many of ordinary mathematicians also qualify as artists of their profession…
I came across this chart on FB, and it’s not a bad description of analytic philosophy when it existed (except, of course, the image next to Kripke is not Kripke!):
Thanks. Great introduction for a lay beginner.
The image next to Quine is not Quine, either, although at least it bears some resemblance to him, unlike the Kripke-image and Kripke.
Like the image next to Kripke’s name, that is in fact not an image of G. E. Moore, either.
And the image of eyeglasses in the linguistic turn panel are not eyeglasses. (oh wait, I thought we were playing at being Magritte.)
The image next to Wittgenstein is actually John Turturro saying ‘If pasta could talk, I’d understand it’.–On a lighter note: has there ever been a more wrong-headed and self-impoverishing intellectual move than the linguistic turn? Asking for Peirce, Husserl, Bergson, Whitehead, Lukács, Dewey, and Merleau-Ponty.
More wrongheaded? “Phenomenology”, perhaps.
We are all agreed that this is AI-generated, right?
This looks like it was generated by A.I.
Leave a Reply