HughRistik comments on Rationality quotes - May 2009 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 19 May 2009 07:30PM

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

Comments (98)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: HughRistik 21 May 2009 08:44:42PM 1 point [-]

In my view, Eco wasn't referring to things in the world like diseases, but rather the world itself.

Diseases are a part of the world. My point is that empirical mysteries are not harmless.

Trying to answer questions like "what is the meaning of life" or "why does anything exist rather than not exist" can drive you mad, and it's a pointless exercise. The takeaway: accept that life has no 'meaning' beyond what we give it, and move on.

I agree with your view. Empirical mysteries are bad. Yet certain non-empirical mysteries such as questions of metaphysical meaning, or value judgment, are better left off as mysteries. Unlike empirical questions, there is no right answer. As many philosophers have argued, a lot of human suffering is based on assigning inappropriate meaning to things. Indeed, cognitive behavioral therapy, and self-help such as The Work of Byron Katie are based on destroying or suspending these meanings that people assign.

I hope this is what Eco means in context. But it's not what is literally said in this quote: the phrase "the whole world" sounds like it is also referring to empirical phenomena.

Comment author: Cyan 21 May 2009 09:11:40PM 4 points [-]

I hope this is what Eco means in context.

The novel is a satire on conspiracy theories. The entire book can be read as a polemic against the mind projection fallacy and confirmation bias.

Comment author: thomblake 21 May 2009 09:10:45PM 1 point [-]

Would it help to note that the book was something of a reductio of conspiracy theories?

Comment author: HughRistik 21 May 2009 09:23:34PM 1 point [-]

Oh, so is it one of Eco's characters asserting this view? That would make more sense.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 24 May 2009 11:50:13AM 2 points [-]

It is the narrator's final despair of rationality. He and his colleagues in a publishing house, having read many conspiracy theories, start inventing their own as an intellectual game. But it gets taken up by real conspiracy theorists; hijinks ensue.