Thread 24712413

I know super obscure philosophers no one else knows about and I'm not sharing.

Joke's on you faggot, I already know all your obscure philosophers and know even more obscure ones that I will NEVER share

>>24712413 (OP)
Philosophy is gay anyway. Keep it in the closet, froggy.

I always wanted to straight out make up a philosopher. Really cool sounding awesome Greek name. Name some of his "theories". Yeah, they sound all fart smelling pinky in the air awesome too. Really we should make this thread, into that basic concept. When the bullshit is well polished enough? We release it into the wild and see how many pseuds claim to know about it. LMAO, lol even. Now *that* would be a 4-chins "like the old days" fun operation

>>24712433
bullshit. mine are eben more obscurer.

>>24712484
it's been done before. it was alright.

>>24712504
He was made up this whole time???!!!

>>24712484
This reminds me of Deinonychus's endometaphysical phlegmologistic problem

>>24712518
Heh gottem

>>24712562
holy shit 19th century Germoids were based

>>24712413 (OP)
a-am i one of them?

>>24712667
if you have to ask, then no you're not

my super obscure philosopher is someone who did not came from the 20th or 21st century anglophone sois :3

>>24712484
Like the Necronomicon?

>>24712413 (OP)
And i don't care

>>24712413 (OP)
But how can you call yourself erudite and well read if you haven't read my diary, desu?

>>24712732
I kneel

We divide analytic metaphysics into naturalistic and non-naturalistic metaphysics. The latter we define as any philosophical theory that makes some ontological (as opposed to conceptual) claim, where that ontological claim has no observable consequences. We discuss further features of non-naturalistic metaphysics, including its methodology of appealing to intuition, and we explain the way in which we take it to be discontinuous with science. We outline and criticize Ladyman and Ross's 2007 epistemic argument against non-naturalistic metaphysics. We then present our own argument against it. We set out various ways in which intellectual endeavours can be of value, and we argue that, in so far as it claims to be an ontological enterprise, non-naturalistic metaphysics cannot be justified according to the same standards as science or naturalistic metaphysics. The lack of observable consequences explains why non-naturalistic metaphysics has, in general, failed to make progress, beyond increasing the standards of clarity and precision in expressing its theories. We end with a series of objections and replies.

>>24712749
>that ontological claim has no observable consequences
normie cope. the capacity for observation is not the same for everyone.

>>24712413 (OP)
well i know super-duber obscure philosophers no one else knows about and I'm not sharing either :^)