"I regret using that term now somewhat, not because I have changed my mind, but because the term immediately provokes a defensive reaction and makes a neutral evaluation of my arguments more difficult. I saw a comment, in a response piece to my post by Nino Kadić, that they were immediately annoyed and could not move far beyond the title, and perhaps this is unsurprising."
"I hope to clarify that my usage of the term "pseudophilosophy" is more technical, paralleling the term "pseudoscience," without these negative connotations. I wanted to explain why the vast majority of philosophers silently ignore panpsychism as a view unworthy of consideration and why many are outright hostile to it. To expand on a footnote I wrote in another response, I am not trying to imply the philosophers working on these theories are fools, only offering terrible arguments."
Panpsychism holds that consciousness is a fundamental property. A small number of philosophers, with Philip Goff prominent among them, defend panpsychism and attract public attention. The position was compared to creationism and called "pseudophilosophy," a label later regretted because it provokes defensiveness and makes neutral evaluation more difficult. Some readers embraced the insult, characterizing panpsychism as "stupid, ridiculous, and charlatan." The critique emphasizes that panpsychists can be mistaken without being unintelligent or dishonest, and that philosophy contains smart eccentrics who embraced erroneous views. The term "pseudophilosophy" is intended technically, paralleling "pseudoscience," to explain professional dismissal and hostility.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]