Status Updates From Philosophical Foundations o...

Hacker assumes that he and his various interlocutors are using using some under qualified philosophical terminology in the same ways. They're obviously not. Different sub domains and traditions have different conventions for certain terms, and Hacker doesn't seen familiar with some idiosyncratic features for Churchland and other reductions coming from philosophy of science.

The criticisms made are so redundant and the mode of analysis gets stale quickly... I need a break from B&H for a while. A few weeks at least.

This whole project is exhausting. B&H feel pedantic, but that's a part of the nature of the natural language program. "To say 'x does y.' is nonsense because x is not the sort of thing that does y." Hacker (at least) is well aware that this is not interesting to most American philosophers, and that there are acceptable alternative usages of terms, but he insists on using a lot of force in this project.

B&H make this a difficult read. It's hard to say, at any given moment, whether they are stating an uncontroversial truism, making a thoughtful criticism of an odd conceptual error, or grossly mischaracterizing an interlocutor. They do all three in each section.

This is definitely going to turn out to be an exhausting read. Large portions seen redundant.

Great book