Re:Meaningness
by jolux on Friday December 09, 2016 @05:08PM
(#13142276)
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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.