at times, he seems to be taking notes. that at least. maybe he wanted to be in the frame taking notes.

he' an personality disorder jerk off that's why

Hahaha!

McDowell's position is anything but clear, but he does seem adamant on maintaining that some (unclear) version of consciousness can be affirmed while not giving into the myth of the given. No idea what his position actually is though.

@@gerhitchman Thanks. From my more recent studies it does seem that McDowell affirms that pre-judgement perception has a "minimal" subjective conceptual contribution. So he accepts a significant given component, but it doesn’t have it’s own independent intelligibility.

​@@fr.hughmackenzie5900that's a similar account advocated by phenomenologists like Zahavi.

Lewis and Kripke? Really? Some of the ideas are difficult, but they don’t create more through their prose (well, maybe Lewis sometimes). Admittedly, the other authors you list have styles that leave much to be desired in terms of clarity. I’m still partial to Dummett’s rather sinuous writing, myself, however. Probably because every time I read again through an article I find something new that I previously missed or didn’t appreciate.

Kripke had a great contribution to referring, as well as Ludwig Wittgenstein, the rest of the Philosophy of Language traditionalists from Strawson to Mcdowell are astray....Chomsky had already explained the nature of language

Kripke, Lewis are a sad mark on contemporary philosophy.

@@mycroftholmes7379 Ha! Chomsky obfuscates the nature of language, didn't explain anything.

Perhaps you just don’t have what it takes to read them. Stick to pop philosophy i.e. Dawkins, WLC, Kastrup, etc.

Considering his main influence was Sellars, it’s pretty obvious how unclear his way of speaking (and writing) would be.

There is such a thing as linguistic behavior. Not such a thing as language as mere tool. It's communication, what is called E-language. Not useful for cognitive science especially of language, but useful for social cognition. What's up with these pompous comments? What's your PhD?

@@dionysianapollomarx Would you say that a pianist playing a recital is exhibiting "musical behavior"? ie the fact that there is "E-language" does not mean that there is "linguistic behavior." And E-language is a poorly defined concept in Chomsky's system. In addition, my comments are not "pompous", they are annoyed, aggressive, perhaps rude. Pompous is the wrong word. tai jien, bub

@M C Maybe I am, but at least I'm smart.

@@findbridge1790 i do agree with most of the points you have pointed out, but it seems that you are trapped within the frigid cage of narcissism

This is like saying: "body behavior". decades after advanced anatomy?

@@MrCartmannn hey little dweeb

Check out Davidsons "triangulation"

What's your magnum opus?

You certainly talk a lot for someone who doesn't know anything about philosophy.

@@TheMahayanist that's not what this is.

Bruh, get a job