,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
No one can or does reject a belief except on the basis of other beliefs. 
There is in philosophy an argument called “the argument from queerness.”
[“Queerness” here means “oddness” or “weirdness”.]
The argument runs “Wouldn’t it be WEIRD of X existed? So, X doesn’t exist.”
It’s not usually considered a strong argument.
[“Queerness” here means “oddness” or “weirdness”.]
The argument runs “Wouldn’t it be WEIRD of X existed? So, X doesn’t exist.”
It’s not usually considered a strong argument.
It has been deployed e.g. against ethics and ethical entities such as values.
Values are not, after all, “natural facts” in the way “water is H₂O” is.
So the argument goes “Wouldn’t it be WEIRD if reality contains values? So, probably, it doesn’t.”
Values are not, after all, “natural facts” in the way “water is H₂O” is.
So the argument goes “Wouldn’t it be WEIRD if reality contains values? So, probably, it doesn’t.”
This argument of course ASSUMES as a key premise that “reality isn’t weird.”
Why anyone would believe THAT is impossible to say.
Phenomenology is utterly opposed to that. It starts from WHAT IS. It doesn’t ‘remove’ parts of reality because it deems them ‘weird.’
Why anyone would believe THAT is impossible to say.
Phenomenology is utterly opposed to that. It starts from WHAT IS. It doesn’t ‘remove’ parts of reality because it deems them ‘weird.’
It should go without saying that ‘weirdness’ is a highly subjective property, not to mention one can judge something to be ‘weird’ only against something else.
At bottom, reality is GIVEN. There’s no basis to judge it “weird”. There’s nothing else to judge it BY.
At bottom, reality is GIVEN. There’s no basis to judge it “weird”. There’s nothing else to judge it BY.
