I don't know anything about this take, but I just want to say I don't get the fascination with this guy. He's practically incomprehensible and I can't tell what his idealogy even is
he's an academic contrarian because the highest echelons of academic philosophy are singularly concerned with having the most hare-brained contrarian streaks possible but not so wacky to stir up some kind of genuine movement, just enough to get students to argue back and forth forever
I don't know anything about this take, but I just want to say I don't get the fascination with this guy. He's practically incomprehensible and I can't tell what his idealogy even is
he's an academic contrarian because the highest echelons of academic philosophy are singularly concerned with having the most hare-brained contrarian streaks possible but not so wacky to stir up some kind of genuine movement, just enough to get students to argue back and forth forever
That makes a lot of sense. It turns me off real quick