https://blog.apaonline.org/2025/11/03/gangster-philosophers-and-actual-philosophers/?amp=1
Is your philosophy "Examined"?
I've read this a few times because I thought it had to be missing something and I may well still.be missing some stuff but it feels a bit like a retreat of the unexplained life is not worth living with gangster thrown in to make it edgy. I would suggest that he misses a trick in not making gangster philosophy the 'right' one in his opinion as it sounds cool, sort of like freakonomics or street epistemology.
Rather like the Socratic saw thaat I suggested he is echoing, I am left worried that he might put his back out with the vigorous clapping of it he does.
I think it's main thrust is trying to say that science can't answer all questions but that's hidden behind the window dressing to make the article sound 'down wit it'. On that part I agree, but he implies through his Damascene conversion to academ8c philosophy that it dies and yet there is no demonstration of that.
I think i am more on the side of the gangsters here, which was an attempt to poison the well, in that whatever gets you through the day is most important.
To go back to the unexplained life line, what a load of self congratulatory guff.
