2 ms·
> Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory Says who, The Science? Is "respectable" a purely objective term, or might there be some subjectivity i
by mistermann 3y ago
> Panpsychism is not a respectable philosophical theory
Says who, The Science?
Is "respectable" a purely objective term, or might there be some subjectivity in play? How would one determine, with perfection?
> unless you want to give ether, a divine soul, idealism, and flat earth the same treatment.
This is the one and only possible way, is it? And you have a proof of that? If not, this is called belief, but belief without philosophy can easily appear as knowledge.
For this situation, I think an even better word than philosophical is blasphemous.
- tgv 3y ago> Is "respectable" a purely objective term, or might there be some subjectivity in play? That's exactly why I included flat earth in the list. If you're going to argue like that, why is flat earth not a respectable theory? Astrology? Or that thunder is caused by Orko?
- mistermann 3y agoThis is a good resource: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-can-be-wrong https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th... Most fundamentally, it is a combination of set/category theory and ~linguistics, but culture and consciousness play very big roles too.