/lit/ - Literature

>>13825192
>Listen to his recent interview with David Chalmers to see him out of his depth.
On the contrary, I found it was Chalmers who was out of his depth, and took it to be symptomatic of most philosophers today who are having to play catch-up with the vanguard of physics and, due to their lack of genuine expertise in the field, inevitably find themselves wrapped up in sophomoric inaccuracies in regards to the science they are having to take as a point of reference.

It seems more and more that philosophers are being boxed out, and I only see this trend being exacerbated as things progress. Carroll and those like him without doubt have a firmer grip on reality than "philosophically" trained individuals like Chalmers, and as technology facilities more and more precise scientific inquiry, I foresee the occupation of philosopher evaporating entirely.

People are realizing that the one principle that metaphysics (the last hold out for an exclusively "philosophic" topic) sought to explain, that is, the essence of things, is more than capable of being resolved through a scientific methodology. And with that, the last account of relevancy that philosophers could lay claim to is handed over to the more accurate and validated experts of the various scientific fields.

Exciting times, really.

>>13825237
read through my post lol