You're free to consider my arguments terrible! It's a judgment call. (If you think what I'm saying is "obviously silly", all things considered, then that sounds a lot like "terrible" to me.)
As I've tried to stress, this sort of substantive judgment differs importantly from purely academic assessments. Many substantively terrible argument…
You're free to consider my arguments terrible! It's a judgment call. (If you think what I'm saying is "obviously silly", all things considered, then that sounds a lot like "terrible" to me.)
As I've tried to stress, this sort of substantive judgment differs importantly from purely academic assessments. Many substantively terrible arguments can still contain valuable philosophical insights that make them worth publishing in academic journals, discussing seriously in philosophy seminars, etc. Here I'm just talking about what I think people should actually *believe* at the end of the day. But I freely admit that it's all contestable -- like the existence of the external world, and literally everything else in philosophy.
You're free to consider my arguments terrible! It's a judgment call. (If you think what I'm saying is "obviously silly", all things considered, then that sounds a lot like "terrible" to me.)
As I've tried to stress, this sort of substantive judgment differs importantly from purely academic assessments. Many substantively terrible arguments can still contain valuable philosophical insights that make them worth publishing in academic journals, discussing seriously in philosophy seminars, etc. Here I'm just talking about what I think people should actually *believe* at the end of the day. But I freely admit that it's all contestable -- like the existence of the external world, and literally everything else in philosophy.