logan235711
New member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 166
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
ta-da! simple question, who do you dislike the most out of the philosophers scoured through time, and if you can manage--'why?'
Hmm, this is a toughie for me. I suppose since I find appealing ideas in just about every philosopher and I might feel like I don't know 'any' philosopher 100% to make such a judgment, BUT! if I had to say, I would probably say...
Colin McGinn. He wrote this paper and book about consciousness where he basically gives up on it with really incomplete support and bad analogies (though some of them can be fun) and although his writing style is pretty clear, mostly I feel that is all there is too it, no great substance, just some general slang throwing without much support. Nevertheless, his absence of considering new ideas and research etc., leads him to propose a rebirth of a philosophy of conscious movement entitled 'New Mysterianism' (aka Anti-Constructive Naturalism) where basically he says consciousness exists, but we can never know anything more about it...ever...
I suppose the idea that he can trust past experiences and data just enough to lead him to think consciousness exists but to completely throw away any new info that proposes further is silly. It's like, 'if you are going to trust your exp enough to get the idea of consc. then why not enough to get more?' giving up just cause it doesn't make sense yet, seems pretty silly, if that were the case, he might as well have given up when he was 6yrs old and didn't know much of anything then...cause if he didn't know then, what hope was there that he would have known later?
lol anyways Colin McGinn is probably up there for me
Hmm, this is a toughie for me. I suppose since I find appealing ideas in just about every philosopher and I might feel like I don't know 'any' philosopher 100% to make such a judgment, BUT! if I had to say, I would probably say...
Colin McGinn. He wrote this paper and book about consciousness where he basically gives up on it with really incomplete support and bad analogies (though some of them can be fun) and although his writing style is pretty clear, mostly I feel that is all there is too it, no great substance, just some general slang throwing without much support. Nevertheless, his absence of considering new ideas and research etc., leads him to propose a rebirth of a philosophy of conscious movement entitled 'New Mysterianism' (aka Anti-Constructive Naturalism) where basically he says consciousness exists, but we can never know anything more about it...ever...
I suppose the idea that he can trust past experiences and data just enough to lead him to think consciousness exists but to completely throw away any new info that proposes further is silly. It's like, 'if you are going to trust your exp enough to get the idea of consc. then why not enough to get more?' giving up just cause it doesn't make sense yet, seems pretty silly, if that were the case, he might as well have given up when he was 6yrs old and didn't know much of anything then...cause if he didn't know then, what hope was there that he would have known later?
lol anyways Colin McGinn is probably up there for me
