Again. I’m sorry to all the philosophy students, grad students and others out there trying to ‘make it’ using their degree. I’d remind them first of all that Schlick and co of the logical positivist fame lived at the poverty level for years and taught in classrooms without heat for atleast a few years due to the economic situation after the Paris peace treaty. Thats dedication to knowledge or perhaps, dare I say it, love of wisdom?
Anyway, I digress, but this idea that every one who graustes is going to be getting traction and making a living doing pop philosophy in blogs and on YouTube is just awful to me. This article is so bad and so amateur I can’t tolerate it. It doesn’t understand logical positivism, it doesn’t explain it correctly. and it certainly doesn’t offer a new insight into it. Thsi of course woudlnt make it past screening for a journal. Yet here it is confusing people who perhaps aren’t familiar with logical positivism and the Vienna circle.
‘Engage with the article’ I have and I won’t bother typing up any more about its specifics than I have to. It’s fundamentally flawed. It’s written to keep fresh content on a Blog and i suppose that’s all we can say. The author didn’t respect the topic enough to give it the time it deserves and the result is nonsense (allusion intended).
I’m not a logical positivist apologist but I just want to say this is so poor I can’t even tolerate not saying saying to warn the rest of you to steer clear of this mess.
SleepingAudi t1_itvjren wrote
Reply to Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
I read the article FYI mods.
Again. I’m sorry to all the philosophy students, grad students and others out there trying to ‘make it’ using their degree. I’d remind them first of all that Schlick and co of the logical positivist fame lived at the poverty level for years and taught in classrooms without heat for atleast a few years due to the economic situation after the Paris peace treaty. Thats dedication to knowledge or perhaps, dare I say it, love of wisdom?
Anyway, I digress, but this idea that every one who graustes is going to be getting traction and making a living doing pop philosophy in blogs and on YouTube is just awful to me. This article is so bad and so amateur I can’t tolerate it. It doesn’t understand logical positivism, it doesn’t explain it correctly. and it certainly doesn’t offer a new insight into it. Thsi of course woudlnt make it past screening for a journal. Yet here it is confusing people who perhaps aren’t familiar with logical positivism and the Vienna circle.
‘Engage with the article’ I have and I won’t bother typing up any more about its specifics than I have to. It’s fundamentally flawed. It’s written to keep fresh content on a Blog and i suppose that’s all we can say. The author didn’t respect the topic enough to give it the time it deserves and the result is nonsense (allusion intended).
I’m not a logical positivist apologist but I just want to say this is so poor I can’t even tolerate not saying saying to warn the rest of you to steer clear of this mess.