Posted: Oct 07, 2019 5:15 am
by Spearthrower
Thommo wrote:
I really liked it. Didn't agree with it all by any means, but I thought it was even handed, methodical and addressed both Kripke's and Chalmers's conflicting views on their own terms. :lol:

If it's too dry for your taste, I'd change my recommendation though and say don't read it.

It looks like a proper modern essay on philosophy, and while I am interested in ideas and fields like ethics, epistemology and metaphysics, I don't find modern writing on these topics anywhere near as interesting in terms of prose and presentation of ideas as that of yesteryear! Even a century back, the style of writing in philosophy was so much more readable for me.

However, it is still immediately recognizable as a serious philosophical paper, and although I wouldn't willingly put myself through the discomfort of reading it, I can still see at a glimpse that it's treating the topic in depth: addressing both Kripke and Chalmers positions head on is a ballsy scope for a single essay as both are very smart guys with a mountain of work behind them. (Although I have to admit I did have a rather disappointing conversation with Chalmers a while back where I wrote to query some of his writing and it turned out he meant something quite contrary to what he'd apparently written.)

If you like it though, enjoy! I fear my capacity for interest ends somewhere substantially lower than this essay though! :lol: I'd rather read you summarize it than attempt to read that.