This passage actually doesn't fall into my favored grumbling and bitching zone.

I'm not certain that the Cartesian idea of the "transparency of the mental" survives the early Modern period, let alone Nietzsche.

And I thought Catholic University was too focused on pre-19th Century philosophy...

I think Will Wilkinson believes it. One of those libertarian philosophasters.

It's one thing for Cowen to point to this (he's an economist -- though why he's interested in it, I don't get) but the linked writer is a philosopher.

I'm not sure Wilkinson's a libertarian, is he? The things he says seem suffused with a strong belief in Natural Law or the Natural Order of Things.

Wilkinson's definitely a libertarian.

the linked writer is a philosopher

Indeed. I was all set to write a "fucking economists" posts (and hand off to Emerson) until I clicked through, and then, tears.

Hmm. I'm not sure how much I trust "libertarian" self-identification, as for some it seems to mean, "I'm a Republican, but I've never lynched a black person." See, e.g., the Galt. It's not particularly easy for me to see the "libertarian"in what I've read of his, in the way that it is in Henley's stuff. For some reason, I think of Wilkinson as a Catholic conservative.

Perhaps I'm confusing him with Douthat, who I'm almost sure is a Catholic conservative. One should have a beard, and the other should shave.

and then, tears.

I take it as encouraging: if he can do this philosophy thing, so can I.

so can I

....without fucking things up so much, I hope.

The transcendence of the ego is so last century.

He probably has no idea why he wrote it.

Or he's putting up a straw man.

Did you click on my link, Tim? It's not just self-identification; the dude works for Cato.

Maybe he only works for Cato out of a misguided self-identification. Knew he his own mind, he'd know that really he's a monarchist.

Wilkinson is really, truly a libertarian, and in a year of living with him and more years of interacting with and reading him I can't think of a time when he sounded like a Catholic conservative.

I'm assuming Cato has some process of determining ideological compatibility when they hire someone.

I think Tim's got him confused with Douthat.

Actually, Cato has established minimal governance procedures such that HR and the top execs know only enough about their employees that the organization as a whole still functions, somewhat autonomously.

Ogged, in fairness, the claim doesn't sound as crazy when it's not applied to "thoughts and motivations." Most people who talk about the accessibility of phenomenology are talking about sense data, qualia, Chisholmian "being-appeared-to-X-ly" and so on.

Shit, fair point.

Crap, I was hoping you would respond angrily, and we'd be off and running. PS ur ghee.

Yeah, I'm probably confusing Wilkinson and Douthat. Or it's a function of my inability to use "libertarian" to predict policy positions anymore; in the absence of something distinguishing, I ascribed something with content to him. Maybe some weird mix. But I guess "libertarian" he is.

23: I'll bite. Descartes thought with sufficient introspection, you could know every aspect of the mental: thoughts, motivations, desires, beliefs, doubts, &c. The writer may mean only chisholming sorts of claims, but then it's not clear why he's dragging poor Descartes into it.

25: Because D was a famous proponent of this view? I think "philosophers still generally assume" id's the target as something philosophers still believe, rather than a bit of Cartesian apparatus that's largely fallen by the wayside. You monad.

Don't project your windowless closethood onto me, you piece of wax.

Wilkinson's another lapsed Mormon, isn't he?

This conversation would be funnier if I actually knew anything about modern philosophy. After I invite you to bring about a constant conjunction between your face and my ass, I'm pretty much out, and then you'll start with the Suarez jokes and it's curtains.

I think you need to watch the clip that's one post up, Labs.

Funny thing, Ogged-- I was expecting to hate the speech, but I thought it was hilarious.

Ditto. I kept thinking, "how on earth is this working?"

The update is somewhat misleading; the post never contained a good rant.

Suarez? Suarez? It's Ockham for you, m'boy. Razor up!

Ockham, Occam, which spelling is the more parsimonious?

Seriously, Cala, if you actually know anything about Suarez off the top of your head I'll be a little bit scared. Though I think "razor up" should be our new battle cry.

I can learn ya about middle knowledge, if you want.

This shivbunny moment brought to you by obscure medieval philosophers.

Why have I never read any Suarez? Between undergrad and the jesuits, I think I've read at least a little from every other damn person who put ink to parchment in the middle ages.

It's in Olde, before they invented spelling.

I thought it was just anti-Mexicanism.

Oh, the Suarez thing is probably because Notre Dame bought all the Suarez experts.

And what is a shiv bunny?

Maybe they're going to breed them.

We could also talk about Suarez's theories of negligent omission. (short: they don't make much sense.)

But if they were negligent emission, they'd be Mineshaft-approved, medieval style.

"medieval style" s/b "old-skool"

42: "Shiv" is a slang term for "knife". Said term is commonly used by medievalold-skool gangstas.

Any other questions?