What is your experience interacting with it? I've read everything she's written and much of the secondary literature from her adherents and critics. (I've also got a minor in philosophy, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the canon.)
For me, the thoughts of predecessors that she builds upon (or amplifies) benefit from her clear, practical, and direct writing style. She draws out implications and essentializes a bunch of philosophers—having read the original works, I can appreciate what she brings to that particular table.
In my opinion, her most significant contributions are in epistemology. I've never seen her theory of concept formation anywhere else, for example. Her grounding of abstraction in concretes sidesteps many of the issues that led Hume astray.
If anyone's interested, I can provide several books that explore her epistemology in great detail and really shine a light on her contributions.
(Her ethics is also unique, as is her politics, but I think history will look most favorably on her epistemology.)
For me, the thoughts of predecessors that she builds upon (or amplifies) benefit from her clear, practical, and direct writing style. She draws out implications and essentializes a bunch of philosophers—having read the original works, I can appreciate what she brings to that particular table.
In my opinion, her most significant contributions are in epistemology. I've never seen her theory of concept formation anywhere else, for example. Her grounding of abstraction in concretes sidesteps many of the issues that led Hume astray.
If anyone's interested, I can provide several books that explore her epistemology in great detail and really shine a light on her contributions.
(Her ethics is also unique, as is her politics, but I think history will look most favorably on her epistemology.)