tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post1870227840853206528..comments2024-03-27T20:51:11.303-04:00Comments on Accepting Ignorance: In Favour of Linguistic Torture, Against Conceptual Torture, Short VersionAlrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-37330888427800134922012-05-26T11:24:11.071-04:002012-05-26T11:24:11.071-04:00I could have been clearer.
The idea of selfishnes...I could have been clearer.<br /><br />The idea of selfishness implies psychological egoism. Unless you specifically define selfishness to not include its own implications. <br /><br />Which is like defining stabbing as parting the skin with a knife but not having them bleed.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-48708784710115993052012-04-24T21:56:15.101-04:002012-04-24T21:56:15.101-04:00It sounds like you're saying psychological ego...It sounds like you're saying psychological egoism should be defined as the conclusion that everyone is quorlblix (or something), is that correct?Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-89549410178536892652012-04-24T20:01:20.756-04:002012-04-24T20:01:20.756-04:002 issues:
1. Communication
2. Implicit meanings...2 issues:<br /><br />1. Communication<br />2. Implicit meanings<br /><br />There is a big difference between arguing that "harbles" as a concept isn't useful...and using the word hand to mean harble without warning.<br /><br />If you do the former, then I can respond ... If you do the latter, you've violated communication norms, and broken the conversation up front, guaranteeing either an extensive repair-job, or a frustrating talk-past. <br /><br /><br />But then...you face the same issue with every conversation with a different person you have. If your goal even resembles communicating with a variety of people...you are saved huge amounts of work by means of doing the definitioning up front. <br /><br />Once you try to do the definitioning up front, though, you'll find that some folks will resist your definition, and a lot of other folks will not be able to separate out their intuitive meaning for the word from the for-this-discussion nominal meaning of the word, ending up again in concept-spaghetti...which is half of my biggest anti-torture position: most people have scads of (extensive?) meaning that is associated with a word, in addition to it's (intensive?) meaning. When you pick an existing word, you get all the extra stuff too, both internally and externally. If you pick a new word, you can frequently explore the concept without said implicit meanings. <br /><br />Again...<br />2 issues: <br />1. What are you trying to communicate? Mostly linguistic torture fails, unless you're substantially smarter than your dialogue partner, and can confuse zir. <br />2. Are you really exploring the idea, or trying to colonize the implicits of an idea? Most of the time linguistic torture is the latter.Aretaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850678936908894274noreply@blogger.com