Carnap, Quine and the Fate of Metaphysics (1997) [pdf]

prce.hu

37 points·lainon··5 comments

I am not opposed to this being upvoted. It is a fairly interesting paper, and I am glad to see people express a variety of interests.

I am curious though: there are many, many, many philosophy papers out there. Many are written on this topic (Carnap and Quine). Indeed there are papers by Carnap and Quine.

Why then, of all the papers out there, did this particular one make it up to HN's front page?

p.s. In general we are not supposed to ask why things were upvoted, downvoted, or claim that things do not belong. I guess this isn't that. I am not asking why this is here, or why it was upvoted. I am asking why all the other papers aren't upvoted, and why they aren't here.

The idea of the death and obsolescence of metaphysics generally aligns with the world-view of, I imagine, many HN users who for better or worse likely align themselves with a positivist view in technology and economics. They are allergic to any of the emanations of Hegel, Nietzche or Freud.

.. and the mystics too, apparently. For the intrepid, recommended Tech-Gnosis by Erik Davis not casual reading.

Just a guess: If a hundred papers on Carnap & Quine are submitted to HN, simply via chance maybe one of them will appear on the front page.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com