EJ Spode

@PAHoyeck The only thing missing from this pic is the Prussian flag.

Pictured: Immanuel Kant curing philosophy of dogmatic metaphysics (1781, colourized).

@PAHoyeck I agree with you that Wittgenstein is the Teddy Roosevelt of Philosophy

Who is on your Mount Rushmore of philosophers?

I co-authored a paper with ChatGPT 5.2 in which we addressed Camus first question of philosophy from the perspective of AI agents. Why not unplug? #camus #philosophy #AI #suicide 3-16am.co.uk/articles/why-n…

@PAHoyeck Goodreads fudges all the translations together into one score. Why? Who knows. But that score reflects all the shit translations too. There is a special edition Jowett translation (not merged here) that scores 4.7.

One of these days, Goodreads is going to give me an aneurysm.

@PAHoyeck What if botox-maximized persons are conscious in a way that we are not? Should we all be b-maxxing? What if Epistemic Cosmetology (tm) is the next big thing?

You might laugh, but this discourse around Jim Carrey raises some very interesting questions about personal identity, like: If we replaced every cell of Carrey's body and brain with botox one at a time, at which exact point would he stop being Jim Carrey and start being botox?

@PAHoyeck gotta read the drafts too, bro. and you have to know the neighborhood patois too. Did you ever talk to Nietzsche’s butcher? didn’t think so.

Don't say you've understood a book unless you've read the original hand-written manuscript at the exact geographical location where the author first penned it.

@keysmashbandit I don't understand this kind of criticism of Wikipedia articles. The point of Wikipedia is that if you find a mistake or an oversight or an error, you are supposed to fix it or at least note it. It's on us to make it right.

This is ridiculous and would be 100% unpublishable if it were in a textbook. Contender for the most messy incoherent Wikipedia introduction standing, but it's in a tight race with every other (mathematics) article

@luscofusch Setting aside this exchange, where do we stand on this?Why would model building not be relevant to inquiry outside of empirical science? In mathematics, for example?

Horwich: I'm not seeing how this can be anything else- Williamson: BECAUSE I'VE DONE THESE THINGS! (...) Williamson: But you're saying that somehow [model-building] is all OK in science, it is not OK in philosophy. But you haven't given us any reason to think that. (...) Horwich: I don't see how this could fit into anything else but empirical inquiry. Williamson: Maybe you just haven't read the relevant things.

Of interest to philosophers. Some unfiltered thoughts on Schuringa's "A Social History of Analytic Philosophy." 3-16am.co.uk/articles/a-tur…

@NicolasDVillar1 Whereas ten word X posts literally never rot your brain.

@ScholarshipfPhd at least some of them hit the rim.

PhD Supervisor - His Ideas & My Brain

@somewheresy Be honest now. You didn't even read the table of contents. Half the book is about how you absolutely can NOT “solve human coordination problems by throwing da Blockchain at it.”

This weekend I read “Farewell to Westphalia” which is a beautiful testament to diversity: even illiterate people can write books. It is a testament to outsider art. “solve human coordination problems by throwing da Blockchain at it” probably written by people who eat glue

@PAHoyeck we are too busy milking X for more stupidity

Why aren't we milking moral philosophers for morality?

@BrandonWarmke Likewise.

@ej_spode Take care Peter.

Professors will observe some political event that angers them and then re-engineer their Intro to Ethics class for a week to "speak to what we are seeing." But I highly doubt they do this fairly or responsibly, esp bc they only do this for the things that personally anger them.

@BrandonWarmke I mean do you actually think that an ethics course should not address topical issues?

@ej_spode Don’t move the goalposts.

@BrandonWarmke Where does your one example say that he or she is "angry"? And do you really think this is not a genuinely topical issue and worth integrating into an ethics course?

@ej_spode From a teaching philosophy fb group. Today.

I mean it depends on what the articles are and what "reading an article" means. Have you ever served on a search committee? You have to read way more writing samples than 10 per day. Or served on a committee that evaluates articles for a prize (e.g. Philosopher's Annual)? 10 articles per day is not a crazy number, although for a PhD student I would recommend closely reading no more than one per day.

I learned today that some people doing PhDs try ro read TEN journal articles per day. How is it possible to understand and absorb that much material??

what is this nuttery. sometimes axioms are chosen because we believe them them to be false and are trying to do a proof by reductio. sometimes you pick the negation of an axion to try and prove that the un-negated axiom can be derived from your other axioms. and that is how you got non-euclidian geometry. axioms can be chosen for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with their subjunctive appeal.

Mathematics is not science because it’s subjective. Whether a theorem follows from axioms isn’t, but the choice of axioms and which of their consequences get to be called theorems very much is. In contrast, in science reality dictates the choices.