Dave Chalmers is a joy to read. OK, perhaps not always, and not for everyone, I suppose. It is analytic philosophy, after all. What makes reading him a joy though is that he is incredibly smart, thorough, careful in his thought, and has an excellent grasp of the canon of analytic philosophy.
Very interesting. I think Collingwood was up against this type of philosophers, the analytical school which just functioned very differently. In reading his autobiography, he writes how he would even agree or admire their refutation of what he had to say, though he knew that they were wrong. They at best just belonged more to the left brain school of philosophers, unable to intuit and see the whole yet very good at analysing things to bits.
Its amazing how far a philosopher will go with a rather shaky view of left brain / right brain. Brains don't actually work that way, nor do they all work the *same* way. We know almost nothing about how brains work but we can expect philosophers to build fairy castles on the flimsiest of data.
Very interesting. I think Collingwood was up against this type of philosophers, the analytical school which just functioned very differently. In reading his autobiography, he writes how he would even agree or admire their refutation of what he had to say, though he knew that they were wrong. They at best just belonged more to the left brain school of philosophers, unable to intuit and see the whole yet very good at analysing things to bits.
Its amazing how far a philosopher will go with a rather shaky view of left brain / right brain. Brains don't actually work that way, nor do they all work the *same* way. We know almost nothing about how brains work but we can expect philosophers to build fairy castles on the flimsiest of data.