It’s not about whether I like it. 😉 It’s about whether it’s false. Compare natu

It’s not about whether I like it. 😉
It’s about whether it’s false.
Compare natural philosophy with literary philosophy.
We get rousseau, kant, hegel, heidegger, and marx, derrida, … why? Because it’s all fantasy literature. None of it is other than analogy. And most all of hit has been harmful. math, physical science, cognitive science, economics, law, evolutionary law. It’s not that complicated.

I mean between plato’s contribution to the dark ages, rousseau’s proto-marxism in an attempt to repace the catholic church with a secular theology, Kant’s desperate attempt to replace religoius law with secular theology. Hegel’s desperate wish to restore the simplicity of teh agrarian past as a secular theology, and marx’s contribution to the present dark age, and Heidegger’s attempt to invert noun and verb… well, isn’t that enough “cope” by pseudoscience and sophistsriy for all eternity? Isn’t that enough?