You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_jclvqla wrote



hamz_28 t1_jcm7dsk wrote

Which two examples weren't analogies?


CardboardDreams OP t1_jcmh3q2 wrote

Analogy: "a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification".

Analogy doesn't mean metaphor. It is an attempt to connect two things. Another word people use is "copula" but that doesn't apply to similies.

I suspect you didn't stop reading because of that. You stopped reading because you suspected this was going to be a science-bashing piece. I hope you decide to give the post another shot.

Edit: I felt bad about my abrasive language and changed it.


akdhu t1_jcnamzf wrote

Cool take on the function of animism...


CardboardDreams OP t1_jcp5p2n wrote

Thanks, I was motivated by the problem that the same mind that conducts science also created animist beliefs. The two are difficult to reconcile if you assume they are incompatible.


IMakeTheEggs t1_jclbaox wrote

"From a man’s perspective, women are capricious, and can be a source of joy as much as of anguish. “Luck, be a gentleman tonight” has always felt wrong to men, and therefore must be the wrong analogy."

This is a big thought-step and also a huge assumption on the author's part, which makes me want to toss the rest aside, too.


CardboardDreams OP t1_jcmjo4k wrote

Should I have used weasel words like "many men"? I figured that went without saying. The purpose of the example is not to belittle anyone since I myself don't sympathize with the sentiment, it's to indicate where this analogy historically came from. Ironically I was drawing attention to its sexism - that men have historically set the terms of the meanings of words.

More importantly, do you disagree with the explanation of why "Luck" has been equated with "lady"? Because clearly this is a cultural pattern, and it seems to beg for a socio-cultural explanation.

Edit: I updated the post to be clearer about the intent.

Edit2: I felt bad about being abrasive and decided to change the language of my comment.


Glittering_Present_6 t1_jcu4pc7 wrote

Apologies for any poor formatting, I'm on my phone.

I think the problem is wider. You then write: "Luck is “like” a female, it isn’t actually one. This is because we understand more than past ages did about material causes, randomness and probability."

Your explanation of why the reader doesn't understand luck being a female but rather 'like a female' is insufficient. I get you're sticking with your argumentative line but there is another important point that, of course, anyone can be capricious. Certainly not just those who present feminine. Combine this with your quick use of 'a female' and the overall declarative tone of your piece and it comes off as if you're more sympathetic to the sexist tones of the analogy than you actually are.


PsychologicalUnit723 t1_jcxzotk wrote

I think there's several materialists you would be interested in reading about, Heraclitus being one, whose birthdate is placed somewhere in the 6th century BCE. His writings only survive in fragments (like Socrates) quoted by his contemporaries but you still get the general gist. The idea that our systems of thought are often imperfect reflections of the material world is touched on by a vast amount of people, and certainly we've had a few epistemic shifts since animism (paganism, Christianity and Islam, the Enlightenment etc.) Some fun quotes about the constant flux (or fire translated from Greek) of the world:

"This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made. But it always was, is, and will be an ever-living Fire, with measures of it kindling, and measures going out."

"We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily."

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” (The things we categorize are always in states of change.)


As a modern person, you might be surprised how close Heraclitus gets to a modern understanding - materialism has always existed on an intuitive level, just not the tools to confirm it definitively!


CardboardDreams OP t1_jczif9e wrote

I'm familiar with Hericlitus, and have studied the pre-Socratics, at least what's left of them. The article notes that materialism started to form piecemeal in the "last three millennia", which includes Hericlitus. When I say ancient, on the other hand, I mean really ancient, like 5000-10000 years; as well as what remnants of it exist in written record, what anthropologists studied in tribal cultures, and what has carried over into modern religions. The last 3000 years are a transitional phase.