/lit/ - Literature

I skipped carnap and positivism. I felt like i knew what theyd been trying to say and i didnt agree. But now im reading some negarastani and he unironically likes carnap. Did i miss something? I thought carnap was a laughingstock

Why was logical positivism right about everything? How does it feel to know that the philosophy you're all reading is literally meaningless

>>12424422
Start with Frege on sense and reference then Russell on denoting (you need to know logic for this one) then early Wittgenstein. After that you should read the absolute legend Rudolf Carnap and then finally get to Quine

>>12425814
Starting with two dogmas makes no sense unless you've read some Carnap at the minimum

Anyone with a basic philosophical education and some intellectual capacity must conclude that Sam Harris destroyed Peterson's position.
My only criticism of Harris is how long it took him to do it.
Peterson's idealism is inconsistent, in several ways, I think his muddled thinking is predicated on a denial of identity. He denies that there is any basic sense data or a priori knowledge, his whole framework is built on fairydust.

>>8952428
Wrong. Quine was below Carnap and Russell.

>>7216523
>Being metaphysical doesn't mean it's meaningless