I meant great in the sense of voluminous and hard to pin down where they are wrong (apart from other philosophers skilled in wordplay). Take one of the arguments from an idealist that I think underpin postemodernism Berkely
(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).
(2) We perceive only ideas.
Therefore,
(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.
I’m not going to argue for this. I’m simply going to argue that for a non-philosopher this form of argument is very hard to distinguish from the stuff in Super-intelligence.
I meant great in the sense of voluminous and hard to pin down where they are wrong (apart from other philosophers skilled in wordplay). Take one of the arguments from an idealist that I think underpin postemodernism Berkely
(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).
(2) We perceive only ideas.
Therefore,
(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.
I’m not going to argue for this. I’m simply going to argue that for a non-philosopher this form of argument is very hard to distinguish from the stuff in Super-intelligence.