As junior researchers, we welcome critical responses, including ones that try to reduce object files to neural representations. Such a critique would need to be grounded in the psychological evidence, not merely dismissals of our mentalistic model as "hopeless".
@alexbryant_ You don't have to read them of they're in Zotero and you can search them whenever you want. Might as well be in your brain at that point, right?
@m_j_kremer @KennethLPearce I agree. The whole purpose of arguing that all ideas come from impressions is so that we can get a handle on what's sense and what's nonsense in philosophy. Why bother to do that if you're not taking it seriously?
@KennethLPearce Maybe the fact that you can just forget about it and go play backgammon is pretty messed up, considering how serious the musings actually are supposed to be. The fact that when you go back to them, they appear strained and ridiculous, is even more disturbing.
@ellieanderphd Analytic philosophy is fairly rigorous once you get past that. And if you've got experimental philosophy to address the validity of the intuitions, that's a pretty decent paradigm IMO
Does anyone know a good ancient Stoic reading for undergrads that addresses Stoic metaphysics? I've got my students reading the Enchiridion but that doesn't really address metaphysics at all.