Part of the problem seems to be that he’s trying to derive a large portion of philosophy from first principles and low-n observations.
This stuff has been well-trodden by Dennett, Frankfurt, Davidson, and even Hume. I don’t see any engagement with the centuries (maybe millennia) of thought on this subject, so it’s difficult to determine whether he thinks he’s the first to notice these challenges or what new angle he’s bringing to the table.
> I don’t see any engagement with the centuries (maybe millennia) of thought on this subject
I used to be that person, but then someone pointed me to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which was a real eye-opener.
Every set of arguments I read I thought "ya, exactly, that makes sense" and then I read the counters in the next few paragraphs "oh man, I hadn't thought of that, that's true also". Good stuff.
This stuff has been well-trodden by Dennett, Frankfurt, Davidson, and even Hume. I don’t see any engagement with the centuries (maybe millennia) of thought on this subject, so it’s difficult to determine whether he thinks he’s the first to notice these challenges or what new angle he’s bringing to the table.