> I’m still not clear on what Huemer means when he says skeptical views are “radical” or “extreme
I'm partial to Marx's sketch of what it means for someone or something to be 'radical': "To be radical means to grasp the root of a matter". In politics, that means you're advocating for a fundamental change to the structure of society (up-rooting), precisely because you conceptualize the problems in society as being downstream from some fundamental (root) cause. It's the difference between chopping off the branches of a dead tree and removing the dead tree entirely. In philosophy, I suppose it means attacking what is at the root of a particular branch (e.g., in epistemology, the notion of having knowledge at all; in ethics, the notion of being ethical in the first place; etc). Perhaps that's what Huemer has in mind?
I know 'radical' is kind of a normatively-loaded term, but at least when I use it (which I do pretty often, since most of the topics I cover are 'radical' belief systems, whether philosophical, political, religious etc.), I hardly ever intend it to be taken as a judgement, only a description. (Whether or not that's how it comes across, is another matter!)
>Obvious to who? Huemer continues the common pattern that philosophers partake in of saying things are obvious or intuitive without specifying who things are obvious or intuitive to. We need a name for this. If you have suggestions leave one in a comment
Commenting here since part 4 comments are paywalled.
Also seems like a lot of the clarifications to these phrases would be introduced by relative pronouns like "who" and would involve a restrictive relative clause, although idk enough linguistics to figure out what the antecedents would have in common or whether this is even the right level of analysis. So I don't actually have a good name or understanding for this phenomenon.
> I’m still not clear on what Huemer means when he says skeptical views are “radical” or “extreme
I'm partial to Marx's sketch of what it means for someone or something to be 'radical': "To be radical means to grasp the root of a matter". In politics, that means you're advocating for a fundamental change to the structure of society (up-rooting), precisely because you conceptualize the problems in society as being downstream from some fundamental (root) cause. It's the difference between chopping off the branches of a dead tree and removing the dead tree entirely. In philosophy, I suppose it means attacking what is at the root of a particular branch (e.g., in epistemology, the notion of having knowledge at all; in ethics, the notion of being ethical in the first place; etc). Perhaps that's what Huemer has in mind?
I know 'radical' is kind of a normatively-loaded term, but at least when I use it (which I do pretty often, since most of the topics I cover are 'radical' belief systems, whether philosophical, political, religious etc.), I hardly ever intend it to be taken as a judgement, only a description. (Whether or not that's how it comes across, is another matter!)
Huemer routinely describes the same views he calls "radical" as "crazy." I think he is judging the views, and the judgment is decidedly negative.
Ah I see, I didn't know that. Yeah the context is definitely important, like looking at the ways someone is using a term like that.
>Obvious to who? Huemer continues the common pattern that philosophers partake in of saying things are obvious or intuitive without specifying who things are obvious or intuitive to. We need a name for this. If you have suggestions leave one in a comment
Commenting here since part 4 comments are paywalled.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions
Found this that's kind of about
statements like "It is obvious that."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commonly-confused-words/using-that-and-which-is-all-about-restrictive-and-non-restrictive-clauses/
Also seems like a lot of the clarifications to these phrases would be introduced by relative pronouns like "who" and would involve a restrictive relative clause, although idk enough linguistics to figure out what the antecedents would have in common or whether this is even the right level of analysis. So I don't actually have a good name or understanding for this phenomenon.
Whoops. I fixed it so you can comment on Part 1-4. Wanna go ahead and post the comment htere?