TheOtherDave comments on How to Seem (and Be) Deep - Less Wrong

46 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 October 2007 06:13PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (118)
Tags: philosophy

Comments (118)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: [deleted] 26 March 2013 06:44:46AM *  1 point [-]

I know almost nothing about plays, movies are more my thing. What do we have for worthwhile "think piece" film? Mindwalk? Waking Life? What the Bleep Do We Know? A sad state of affairs.

I'm not so much suggesting/lamenting that plays/movies/books should all gain rigor. I'm staring into a massive unoccupied niche where strikingly rigorous works could exist. Ok, maybe not massive.

Primer proved difficult material can gain a following. Now we need a few more Shane Carruths with somewhat different goals.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 26 March 2013 01:33:42PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for clarifying. Of those I've only seen Mindwalk but I understand better what you mean now.

And, sure, I agree that there's a mostly unexplored popular-entertainment niche for this sort of rigorous message film; I originally thought you were supporting a different claim.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 March 2013 02:26:50PM 0 points [-]

Above, you said:

I continue to be puzzled by the idea that plays should specify problems and work towards answers (or tell us things we didn't know, or make arguments beginning with facts); objecting to a play on the grounds that it doesn't do this strikes me as about as sensible as objecting to a scientific paper on the grounds that it doesn't rhyme.

What are sufficient grounds for objecting to a play?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 26 March 2013 03:07:10PM 0 points [-]

(shrug) This reduces to the question "what are plays for"? Whatever they're for, failing to do that thing is grounds for objection.

I expect "that thing" is a disjunction, and I don't claim to have a full specification. But in much the same way that one doesn't have to be able to articulate precisely what a business plan is for in order to be pretty confident that the fact that it isn't in iambic pentameter isn't grounds for objecting to one, I don't think a full specification of the purpose of theatre is necessary to support the claim I'm making.

That said, if I strip out the implicit context and address your question in isolation... "failing to entertain" is probably a generic enough answer to cover most of the bases.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit