= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Guarding Against the Postmodernist Failure Mode - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (79)
The pains don't always stretch to learning philosophy, which EY hasn't done, and advises against, with the result that LW jargon in fact often does reinvent philosophical jargon.
Of course, that's why I said "some pains" and not "great pains." People are aware of the issue and generally avoid it when it's easy to do so, or there will be comments pointing out that something is just a different name for an older term. Also, I excluded Eliezer's sequences and the resulting jargon for a reason.
... but does so in a way that is probably more accessible to the average 21th century geek than the original philosophical jargon was, so it's not a great loss, because there are more geeks that don't understand philosophical jargon than philosophers who don't get geek references.
It's a great loss because it prevents constructive dialogue between the two communuties. There is quite a lot that US broken in the sequences...not so much in terms of being wrong as in terms of being unclear, addressing the wring question etc...and it looks likely to stay that way.
That was supposed to be "IS", right?
Yes, this is why I recommend that LWers read Robert Nozick.
Well, I like Nozick, but I like a lot of other people.as well.
It is a great loss, because the original terms are nowhere to be seen. So if someone wants to read, say, non-amateur writing on the idea and its history, they're out of luck.
I sorta agree - I guess it depends on how valuable it is to be able to read Philosophy; some (Lukeprog, Eliezer) seem to consider it mostly a waste of time, others don't, and I'm not really qualified to tell.
We're talking here specifically about the amateur philosophy, presented with neologisms as if it's original thought, when it simply isn't. You seem to be saying that it's valuable if EY writes about it but not if professional philosophers do - surely that's not what you mean?