= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on Why didn't people (apparently?) understand the metaethics sequence? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (229)
I never used "realism," so there's no point in my defining it.
Look back at this thread!
My whole point was that Eliezer avoids the word. He thinks that cognitivism is a useful concept, so he uses it. Similarly, he avoids "moral subjectivism" and uses terms like "subjectively objective." He equivocates when asked for a label, endorsing both "realist" and "cognitivist anti-realist." But he does spell out the details, in tens of thousands of words across this sequence.
Yes, if people want to pin down Eliezer's views they should say what parts are realist and what parts are anti-realist. When I object to people calling him realist or anti-realist, I'm certainly agreeing with that!
After that comment about "bashing philosophy," I don't think there's any point in responding to your first paragraph.
I am one of a number of people who cannot detect a single coherent theory in his writings. A summary in the standard jargon would be helpful in persuading me that there is one.
...
These quotes did not exactly express to me that you don't know to what extent his views or realist or anti-realist. I'm sorry if I was targeting you instead of Eliezer... but you were agreeing with his confusing equivocation.
Ah yes, the old eschewing the well-recognized, well-explored terminology for an oxymoronic neologism. How could anyone get confused?
You sure you're not trying to force me to use jargon I don't like? I don't know what else to call responding to new jargon with sarcasm.
At the very least, you seem to be demanding that we confuse laymen so that philosophers can understand. I happen to believe that philosophers won't understand, either.
No, the right answer isn't to say "I don't know if he is a realist." Actually, I do think it would be better to reject the question of realism than to equivocate, but I suspect Eliezer has tried this and found that people don't accept it.
As far as I can tell, no one understands. But I don't see how my suggestion, which involves reading maybe 2 encyclopedia articles to pick up jargon, would confuse laymen especially.
Right, it's just you explicitly called him an anti-realist. And he apparently calls himself both? You can see how I could get confused.
Do people accept equivocation? I'd be fine with rejecting the question of realism so long as it was accompanied by an explanation of how it was a wrong question.
Just expressing my opinion re: design principles in the construction of jargon. I know I've been snippy with you, apologies, I haven't had enough sleep.