Read on Twitter
Which philosopher-signaling term/s are most likely to instead reveal the opposite? #philosophy
Buckle in. A thread.
Buckle in. A thread.
(It’s OK to unbuckle. That was just clickbait.)
OK, back to question.
Options:
A) Using the term “epistemology” where not necessary. This greatly increases the chances of misusing it and becoming a “Wittgenstein signaling device”
#epistemology
OK, back to question.
Options:
A) Using the term “epistemology” where not necessary. This greatly increases the chances of misusing it and becoming a “Wittgenstein signaling device”
#epistemology
B) Abusing the term “ontology.” Though only necessary to look up meaning once a week or so on Google, and the definition actually helps, prone to Wittgensteining also.
#Ontology
#Ontology
C) Misuse of the term “tautology” - particularly strong reverse effect if referring to German studies.
D) Inserting references to Kierkegaard to support unrelated points. (Hint: Kierkegaard hasn’t been cool since Bill Clinton popularized “Leaves of Grass”)
Aside: At this point you may be thinking: aha! His philosophy-signaling just backfired... we’ll see
...or not. that was to get you to E:
E) Piling on on Kant. Let’s face it, you wouldn’t do this in an actual spoken conversation: There you’d be overcompensating with the “a as in apple” pronunciation and the whole house of cards would topple.
E) Piling on on Kant. Let’s face it, you wouldn’t do this in an actual spoken conversation: There you’d be overcompensating with the “a as in apple” pronunciation and the whole house of cards would topple.
F) Claiming to be a Spinozan.
First of all, it’s too hard to do if you’re not committed, and second it attracts really intense philosophy types who are going to figure you oit in like 2 tweets max.
On the plus side they’re typically against doxxing.
First of all, it’s too hard to do if you’re not committed, and second it attracts really intense philosophy types who are going to figure you oit in like 2 tweets max.
On the plus side they’re typically against doxxing.
Aside: I haven’t mentioned Nietzsche yet because he’s seemingly less assailable and also “in.”
G) Pointing out obscure logical fallacies from an Internet list. “Ignoratio elenchi” is a shortcut to being shown an Ignoramus. Plus it is more logic-signaling.
I’m sure there are more and feel free to add them below.
#philosophyquiz
I would have made a poll but this way I can imagine someone chuckling at least at one of these seven philosophy-signaling cardinal sins and that will mean I have achieved something good...
#philosophyquiz
I would have made a poll but this way I can imagine someone chuckling at least at one of these seven philosophy-signaling cardinal sins and that will mean I have achieved something good...
... as noted in Socrates’s writings.
H) Showing off that you know what a Wittgenstein ruler is, and who Wittgenstein was. Quick, who came first Hegel or Wittgenstein?
Update. So I& #39;m now following a couple of philosophy people who btw are awesome. I feel like posting a video like the tiktok person who asked "is math real?" and it turned out to be really profound, but in my case it will be straight-up ignorance signaling, as in...
Why does a philosopher talk in schools "I& #39;m a Kantian" eg Is it because the questions are so hard that these are just trailblazers and they& #39;re following that particular path?
Or is it a framing thing, or a style/cool thing? Or is the -ian term reserved for dissing others?
Or is it a framing thing, or a style/cool thing? Or is the -ian term reserved for dissing others?
So now we have
I) Asking a philosophy question on a video, pretending you’re a “natural.”
I mean, Duchamp made a fountain but the second person just bought a urinal.
I) Asking a philosophy question on a video, pretending you’re a “natural.”
I mean, Duchamp made a fountain but the second person just bought a urinal.
J) Zeno’s Paradoxes in your pinned tweets tends to have not a reverse effect but the distinct tumbleweedy feel of exile.
