Never mind, posted the comment before reading the whole thing.
I don’t understand the point of this post other than to make fun of some beliefs without mentioning them; I’m pretty sure that I haven’t got all the references and ones that I’ve got (e.g. about panpsychism) aren’t as widely understood as the potential audience for a text on rationality.
Reading this feels like a waste of time to me. I suggest removing this one from sequences; I’m pretty sure that there are better ways to achieve the stated goal of this text.
People who disbelieve in naive correspondence theories of truth can do.for sophisticated reasons,.ie. there are various objections to the correspondence theory, and the OP does not address them.
Never mind, posted the comment before reading the whole thing.
I don’t understand the point of this post other than to make fun of some beliefs without mentioning them; I’m pretty sure that I haven’t got all the references and ones that I’ve got (e.g. about panpsychism) aren’t as widely understood as the potential audience for a text on rationality.
Reading this feels like a waste of time to me. I suggest removing this one from sequences; I’m pretty sure that there are better ways to achieve the stated goal of this text.
People who disbelieve in naive correspondence theories of truth can do.for sophisticated reasons,.ie. there are various objections to the correspondence theory, and the OP does not address them.
you were not the target audience of this post, it did convince me for correspondence theory of Truth for its pragmatic value.