Yeah, it's actually not bad. My initial assessment was perhaps too harsh because I assumed he didn't know the literature. I'm still not sure that he does entirely but it's still good on its own I think.
Re:Meaningness
by vanderZwan on Friday December 09, 2016 @05:13PM
(#13142313)
> I'm still not sure that he does entirely
Wouldn't that a bit of an unreasonable demand anyway, given the vastness of philosphy?
Well, I'm not saying he has to read absolutely everything that could be read on the subject because nobody has; especially not I. I just mean that on first pass I kind of assumed he was trying to be as original as possible and I thought he was failing but then I realized he was more trying to translate inscrutable brilliance into readable form. The latter he succeeds with, the former he does not.
Thanks for the link. I found it very insightful. I especially like the sublinked exposition on nihilism: https://meaningness.com/nihilism-hardcore-vs-lite
I didn't understand his distinction between subjective vs neither objective nor subjective at first, but the examples he gave illuminated the distinction, and he thus changed my perspective on the issue.
> Unfortunately, the postmodern pioneers chose to write in obfuscatory riddles. Their insights were difficult enough to understand without that. Few followers could extract the insights. Most teachers are second-generation professors who didn’t understand pomo when it was new, and third-generation ones who were mainly taught dumbed-down second-generation “pseudo-pomo.”
https://meaningness.com/metablog/stem-fluidity-bridge
A part of his project seems to be to pick what he considers to be the "good parts" of postmodernism, and explain them in a way that makes sense to people from a STEM background.