/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16742679]

What is your opinion of Daniel Dennett?

[Anonymous No.16742685]

>>16742679
Incapable of beating me in a debate/ 10

[Anonymous No.16742698]

i don't care to get into a dennett debate so don't @ me,
but since you asked dennett is correct

[Anonymous No.16742708]

Dennett wishes he was a scientist, but science is a lot of work :( so better to be a famous philosopher.

[Anonymous No.16742724]

>>16742685
>>16742698
>>16742708
So you guys just don’t say anything to each other?

[Anonymous No.16742734]

>>16742724
We're all the same person retard. We r the hacker known as 4chan

[Anonymous No.16742752]

>>16742679
lol why does this board have such a hate boner for dennett recently?
did he say something mean about your favourite pop-thinker?

[Anonymous No.16742762]

>>16742752
He's an atheist and a terrible philosopher and our jbp punching bag is still on the mends

[Anonymous No.16742789]

>>16742734
>WE REPRESENT

[Anonymous No.16742795]

>>16742762
so basically he doesn't conform to your preconceived notions?
do you only read books by people whose ideas you already slavishly follow? what's the point?

[Anonymous No.16742806]

>>16742752
>>16742795
Not him. I see Dennett as a hack. It's not just his arguments that are unconvincing ("Why not just remove consciousness altogether?), it's that he damages philosophical conversation, academically.

[Anonymous No.16742810]

>>16742795
No fucktard, I don't need to read a book by a guy to know the general scheme of his metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.16742814]

Danny "The Dumbass" Dennett

[Anonymous No.16742818]

I don't think a major academic philosopher has been as irrevocably BTFO by basement-dwelling anonymous internet poster quite like Dennett.

[Anonymous No.16742834]

He espouses the quite literally the dumbest idea in the history of philosophy

[Anonymous No.16742841]

>>16742834
>He espouses the quite literally the dumbest

[Anonymous No.16742846]

>>16742841
>he doesn't use the double sided article

[Anonymous No.16742847]

>>16742841
>espouses the—quite literally—the dumbest

[Anonymous No.16742855]

>>16742847
>espouses
how many exactly

[Anonymous No.16742875]

>>16742806
ok. "academia" seems to like him though, so you appear to be wrong on the second point, unless you are saying that "academia" has a tendency to self-harm. the first thing seems to be a question, not an argument. also even if it was framed as an argument, it would appear to be an incorrect interpretation of dennett's beliefs, even based on a cursory glance through wikipedia.
>>16742810
you appear to be a massive idiot anon. sorry.
>>16742818
this appears to be a rather stupid strawman
>>16742834
the ancient greeks believed the womb floated freely inside a woman's body and was attracted to certain smells. i'm pretty sure that's more stupid that whatever dennett believes.

[Anonymous No.16742884]

>>16742806
Jaron Lanier is a retard who does not understand what the concept of "philosophical zombie" means.
>>16742834
True, but he is still worth reading, insofar as he refutes many dualist positions that are genuinely wrong. Overcoming him means that you have formulated a rigorous, undebatable dualist theory, which should be the goal for all of us. Until then, his books and articles will be useful.

[Anonymous No.16742896]

>>16742875
>the ancient greeks believed the womb floated freely inside a woman's body and was attracted to certain smells. i'm pretty sure that's more stupid that whatever dennett believes
Terrible analogy, eliminativism is far more stupid than that.
The correct analogy would have the Greeks believing all that junk WHILE having direct evidence of the contrary (as it is the case for Dennett when he denies phenomenical consciousness).

[Anonymous No.16742904]

>>16742884
>undebatable dualist theory, which should be the goal for all of us
>still clinging onto “matter”
Just let go anon, you have no need of this concept

[Anonymous No.16742929]

>>16742679
Anglo establishment slave

[Anonymous No.16742933]

>>16742904
Are you an idealist like Berkeley?

[Anonymous No.16742964]

>>16742933
Yes. Not exactly the same view but a theistic idealism— divine idealism as I like to call it. Essentially, we’re characters in a cosmic mind’s dream.

[Anonymous No.16743063]

>>16742964
TES and it's consequences have ben a disaster for the millennial mind.

[Anonymous No.16743094]

>>16743063
the Times Educational Supplement?

[Anonymous No.16744157]

>>16743094
The Elder Scrolls

[Anonymous No.16744214]

>>16742875
>the ancient greeks believed the womb floated freely inside a woman's body and was attracted to certain smells. i'm pretty sure that's more stupid that whatever dennett believes.
HAHA imagine the future- "those 21st century bumpkins REALLY thought that earth was this big ass basketball floating in a void that came from a big explosion of shit and shit energy existing eternally for no other reason than to give their theories credence."

*BREATHE IN*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eN3fxzn0ro

[Anonymous No.16744254]

People knock him for his epiphenomenal theory of consciousness. But he's done other work which is less polarizing . I like his work in the philosophy of biology.

[Anonymous No.16744318]

>>16742818
Absolutely based.
>>16742875
>this appears to be a rather stupid strawman
Nah. Something has to experience an illusion. That's called consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16744334]

>>16742875
>s-s-strawman!
pathetic

[Anonymous No.16744453]

>>16742806
That's a fun framing of it, but that's always the BTFO, and you can state it in a simple sentence. In fact we should have a quick competition to see who can phrase it most concisley. The way I always do it is:

> if consciousness is an illusion, whom is it deceiving?

Mahayana Buddhism, Dennet bloviating, and all other NPC ideologies eternally and forever BTFO by this. They always will be.

[Anonymous No.16744479]

>>16742679
I agree with him