/lit/ - Literature

>>20639737
This guy is not a philosopher, and it shows in his book. It's filled with evopsych bullshit, and he ignores nearly all of the relevant philosophical literature on like everything he talks about. He tries to distinguish his FBT idea from Plantinga's similar argument, though his is just a weaker version, and he never engages with the criticisms of arguments like this that have been raised by philosophers. He also ignores that such arguments are obviously self-defeating. He makes the egregious claim that relativity of simultaneity entails that time isn't real. He never engages with any of the philosophy of time literature and doesn't even seem to be aware of the fact that the B-theory of time exists. His exegesis of Kant is extremely bad, and he claims that Kant thought we can have no knowledge of reality. He tries to resurrect Kant's claim that space and time are ideal, but he never explains how this is supposed to be reconciled with relativity and non-Euclidean geometry, nor does he even seem to be aware that this is a problem or of any of the Neo-Kantian attempts to solve it. He claims that our best scientific theories don't give us an ontology, but never gives us an account of ontological commitment, nor does he engage with any of the literature on the realism/anti-realism debate. It's just yet another terrible pop philosophy/science book.