But if we take the opposite direction, we would end up arguing that "this statement is inferable because objects C and D are similarly placed in the category of linear relations" and at that point it would simply be more useful to just do "science"

A key tension is the future role of universal properties and their usefulness at doing proper philosophy(and not simply naive classification), in short, I think that if we make it a goal to chase philosophical concepts as UPs we'll be taking away the necessary generality for properly employing them

Let me just say this, a few years back when I was there in vacation my cousin asked me if I had a girlfriend in Portugal, I said yes and right after he asks "Why don't you get another here as well?"

Tbh I think that kind of writers block is a perfect occasion to use ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to write some bullet points and you write the rest yourself

Brb, I'm introducing Web devs to the concept of "if and only if"

I actually don't know who wrote which section, they simply didn't put the authorship anywhere from what I can see. They might've not read them direct but some of the texts have references to authors directly influenced by them like Stirner, Barthes, etc.

Wait, you read Grothendieck in french? I know you have "Pierre" as your name here but I always thought that you were British

In particular, the issue that I'm reading(n16, 1973) has a lot of interwoven topics such as structuralism through hegelian lenses, anti-vax stuff, critiques of eco-fascism, critiques of scientism, revolutionary ecology. Nowadays, there's hardly no contemporary journal that could hold these together

Wow, I knew he was an ecologist but I had no idea he and others had wrote so much about it. These almost feel alien to me because their critiques of modernity genuinely sound like they could've been written by Heidegger(if he wasn't a fascist), did you found these via second literature, or?

If it's an A. G. Cook mix, all you need to know is that she's mother!