Will_Newsome comments on Unknown knowns: Why did you choose to be monogamous? - Less Wrong

48 Post author: WrongBot 26 June 2010 02:50AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (651)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 27 August 2011 03:05:57AM 7 points [-]

"Self, what's so great about this monogamy thing?" I couldn't come up with any particularly compelling answers, so I called Emma up and we planned a second date.

This is the sort of thinking that moral conservatives think is dangerous, and I think their arguments are underrated. Can anyone point me to that quote? It's like 'you should leave walls standing until you can see the purpose for which they were built'. (I would add that it's extremely easy to attribute incorrect reasons to Far wall-builders, like evolution or God. And things are allowed to exist for more than one purpose; most things only happen because many reasons cohere.) "Although Logos is common to all, most people live as if they have a wisdom of their own." Link. I'm a fan of something like conservative Taoism.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 27 August 2011 03:22:01AM *  11 points [-]

Can anyone point me to that quote?

You may be thinking of this passage from G. K. Chesterson's The Thing:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Best wishes, the Less Wrong Reference Desk.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 27 August 2011 04:22:38AM *  5 points [-]

Thank you, Z. M. Davis of the Less Wrong Reference Desk! That's exactly what I was lookin' for. ETA: I might just read the whole Thing; Chesterton's pretty seductive.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 01 September 2011 02:35:56PM 5 points [-]

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.

I dislike how readers think an argument is more persuasive when it repeats a simple idea over and over again repeatedly many times with hardly any variation or change in content at all despite the simplicity of the idea. Chesterton could've just written "the wall has a purpose, don't be an idiot" and for the attentive reader that'd have been enough.

Comment author: lessdazed 17 September 2011 10:44:34PM 4 points [-]

repeatedly many times...and for the attentive reader that'd have been enough.

Superfluous

(Skim the first paragraph and read the second.)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 17 September 2011 09:44:27PM 2 points [-]

Chesterton could've just written "the wall has a purpose, don't be an idiot" and for the attentive reader that'd have been enough.

Well for the attentive reader the whole argument itself was probably unnecessary.