Jump to content

The book 'why the world does not exist'


Buket

Recommended Posts

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").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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 by Buket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.