For those who have a longer procrastination time ahead, you might prefer (re)reading http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philos

For those who have a longer procrastination time ahead, you might prefer (re)reading http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html than elaborating on definition loops. It strikes me how simple and yet deep are PG insights on topics that seem to be outside his usual field. Here he just proposes to take Aristotle in one hand, Wittgenstein in another, wrap all philosophy in between and throw the thing over board. Then rebuild from scratch, changing the partially wrong premisses from metaphysics (general useless ideas) to science (general useful ideas). Someone knows if this article had some echoes in the philosophy field? Or was it completely ignored?