[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
▼ Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature
Return Catalog Bottom Refresh
Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.
[Advertise on 4chan]
[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]
Anonymous Archived
 No.25555038
File: images (20).jpg (12 KB, 514x389)
12 KB JPG
 No.25555038 Archived
did Metzinger prove Buddha correct 2,000 years later?
>>
Anonymous
 No.25555170
 No.25555170
>>25555038
No.
>>
Anonymous
 No.25555264
 No.25555264
>>25555038
Because he's skeptical about the existence of the Self? What's so radical or persuasive about his view that it's better and more persuasive than Hume's?
>>
Anonymous
 No.25555657
 No.25555657
>materialists
>proving cause and effect
choose one.
>>
Anonymous
 No.25556025
 No.25556025
Just today I was reading a LessWrong entry from a rationalist that was corresponding with Metzinger. I know about BAAN but I thought he was above those types. Maybe he wants in on that sweet "If Anyone Builds It... " money and possibly pussy. Weird Bay Area jew pussy but pussy nonetheless.
[Return] [Catalog] [Top]
Post a Reply
Return Catalog Top Refresh
[Advertise on 4chan]
Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.