The book 'why the world does not exist'

[Buket]

Did you read the book "Why the World Does not Exist'? If you did what do u think about it?

[Strange]

Did you read the book "Why the World Does not Exist'? If you did what do u think about it?

 

 

I haven't. What did you think of it? Is it worth reading?

Edited July 21, 2016 by Strange

[Carrock]

Did you read the book "Why the World Does not Exist'? If you did what do u think about it?

If the book exists, its claim is false so I won't be reading it.

[Buket]

I haven't read the book but read the comments about it and listened to Gabriel's Tedx talk about the book.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hzvesGB_TI0

[Strange]

If the book exists, its claim is false so I won't be reading it.

 

Very good.

 

Although, from the description on Amazon, it looks like it is an introduction to some important ideas in philosophy such as how do we know things, what can we know, what is the relationship between what we can know and "reality", what does it mean to know something, etc.

 

Whether it is any good at doing this is another question. It certainly doesn't claim that the world doesn't exist (except, perhaps, for some particular definition of "the world").

[Buket]

I think he denies a certain definition of the world, right?

[Strange]

I think he denies a certain definition of the world, right?

 

I don't know. But from the description on Amazon, it sounds like he might be using it as an analogy for Russell's set of all sets (and the resulting paradoxes). What do you think?

[Buket]

What is Russel's set of all sets? )

 

I don't know. But from the description on Amazon, it sounds like he might be using it as an analogy for Russell's set of all sets (and the resulting paradoxes). What do you think?

Did you see the Tedx talk of Gabriel I sent earlier?

[Strange]

What is Russel's set of all sets? )

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

 

 

Did you see the Tedx talk of Gabriel I sent earlier?

 

I rarely watch videos. Very rarely. You might as well assume never.

[Buket]

What do you think "the world is not found in the world" so it does not exist?

[Strange]

What do you think "the world is not found in the world" so it does not exist?

 

Well, it obviously doesn't mean that the world does not exist. (Because the world very obviously does exist.)

 

So I suggest you read the book to find out what he means by that.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Strange

[Sensei]

If you play a game, does game exist? (not talking about CD/DVD/disk memory used to store code&data)

Code loads data from disk, or generate stuff on the fly, or both. Then game is run and everything is displayed.

Does 'game' exist.. ?

[Buket]

Couldn't get it..

[Eise]

Did you read the book "Why the World Does not Exist'? If you did what do u think about it?

 

No, I did not. But:

# I looked at the video. This is cheap metaphysics.

# Reading the critiques on the original book (in German), many critics say the same

# I read another book of Markus Gabriel ('Ich ist nicht Gehirn' ~ 'I am not brain'). After the reading I, as an academic philosopher, felt ashamed that somebody like him is a philosophy professor. Just attacking straw men and caricatures of view points of others.

 

So I will not read the book. Seems a waste of time to me.

[Buket]

 

No, I did not. But:

# I looked at the video. This is cheap metaphysics.

# Reading the critiques on the original book (in German), many critics say the same

# I read another book of Markus Gabriel ('Ich ist nicht Gehirn' ~ 'I am not brain'). After the reading I, as an academic philosopher, felt ashamed that somebody like him is a philosophy professor. Just attacking straw men and caricatures of view points of others.

 

So I will not read the book. Seems a waste of time to me.

Since I am not a philosopher like you I can't critisize him like you can. Edited July 22, 2016 by Buket

[Eise]

Since I am not a philosopher like you I can't critisize him like you can.

 

That's OK. You asked what people think of it. I gave my opinions.

 

I just have to warn you that many of Gabriel's ideas (at least in the way he published them in those books) are shallow, and give a bad impression about what philosophy really is.

 

If you want an impression of what modern metaphysics is, you can read e.g. D. M. Armstrong, Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. It surely is not such an easy read, and not funny at all, but if you want to know what is metaphysics about, it is a much better read.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Eise

[John Cuthber]

Is this book part of the world?

[Buket]

Is this book part of the world?

I think we have to ask him:)

[dimreepr]

I think we have to ask him:)

 

 

No need, just pick it up.

[Buket]

 

 

No need, just pick it up.

Lol

[Buket]

 

That's OK. You asked what people think of it. I gave my opinions

Since you are a philosopher could you tell me what Gabriel is trying to say.

 

I just have to warn you that many of Gabriel's ideas (at least in the way he published them in those books) are shallow, and give a bad impression about what philosophy really is.

 

If you want an impression of what modern metaphysics is, you can read e.g. D. M. Armstrong, Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. It surely is not such an easy read, and not funny at all, but if you want to know what is metaphysics about, it is a much better read.

 

That's OK. You asked what people think of it. I gave my opinions.

 

I just have to warn you that many of Gabriel's ideas (at least in the way he published them in those books) are shallow, and give a bad impression about what philosophy really is.

 

If you want an impression of what modern metaphysics is, you can read e.g. D. M. Armstrong, Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. It surely is not such an easy read, and not funny at all, but if you want to know what is metaphysics about, it is a much better read.

Since you are a philosopher could you tell me what Gabriel is trying to say?

[DrKrettin]

I haven't read the book but read the comments about it and listened to Gabriel's Tedx talk about the book.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hzvesGB_TI0

 

 

I calculate the mean time between OKs to be 8.57 seconds. I was sad enough to count them for 4 minutes. But I have to do something when listening to philosophical argument.

[dimreepr]

Since you are a philosopher could you tell me what Gabriel is trying to say?

 

 

It doesn't really matter what he's trying to say, philosophy isn't really about what someone else has to say, it's more about your understanding of the world around you; that's not to say you can't find meaning in others interpretations, but it's ultimately for you to decide, no-one can do it for you.

Edited July 24, 2016 by dimreepr

[Buket]

 

 

I calculate the mean time between OKs to be 8.57 seconds. I was sad enough to count them for 4 minutes. But I have to do something when listening to philosophical argument.

LOL

[imatfaal]

 

No, I did not. But:

# I looked at the video. This is cheap metaphysics.

# Reading the critiques on the original book (in German), many critics say the same

# I read another book of Markus Gabriel ('Ich ist nicht Gehirn' ~ 'I am not brain'). After the reading I, as an academic philosopher, felt ashamed that somebody like him is a philosophy professor. Just attacking straw men and caricatures of view points of others.

 

So I will not read the book. Seems a waste of time to me.

 

Now you know what scientists think when posters start quoting pop-science as the height of learning and treating michio kaku as if he is handing down tablets of wisdom. It is exactly the same in my field - or my erstwhile field now I suppose - jurisprudence, critical legal studies, and criminology. I much prefer to read books deliberately pitched at a lay audience and written by professional communicators rather than dumbed down and embarrassing nonsense by academics looking to leverage their position into a little hard cash through mass market publication. Some real geniuses manage to cross over and do both; you will know H L A Hart and John Rawls - a more modern example is Michael Sandel at Harvard Law School and now on the BBC. I do not know enough science to properly judge in that arena but Chad Orzel strikes me as both a superb communicator to the lay-reader and a steadfast refusnik when it comes to the elision of the truth through the desire for mass-market appeal