Submitted by Maxwellsdemon17 t3_y75g2l in philosophy
I would be careful with the hyperbolic language... things like "can only be countered by".
I don't think you or anyone is nieve naive enough to actually think this is the only way. But when we exaggerate the importance of one tactic, we ignore others.
Statements less extreme are boring, but more importantly they are true.
You should seek the truth but never settle on it. You can make assumptions to get you closer to the truth, but I find that asking the right questions can help to engage the person in a discussion, as people are generally self-interested and usually like telling others about their opinion on things. I try not to ask too many loaded questions, because I feel like that's just a question with built in assumptions, but asking questions you already assume they don't have an answer to can sometimes allow people to see things from a different perspective, and that's how change should happen. Less forced narratives, and more questioning the narratives. But nowadays, if you question the narrative, some people like to demonize you and argue that you are against the narrative, when in reality, it's more about trying to figure out if the narrative does more harm than good.
>But nowadays, if you question the narrative, some people like to demonize you
Nowadays? I think its the basic reaction since always.
Thank you.
Big
It's one quote from the article, which is just a brief summary of a greater work. It's not intended as any simple end all solution.
Its the title of this post...
I stated myself i don't think the author is that nieve naive.
Its simply a suggestion against using such language.
The article actually addresses this point. It's just a quote the conclusion from a much larger discussion.
Also, naive.
Lol brutal spelling on my part
Again i never said it was the end all solution, i even implied i think the author doesnt intend that.
Im advising against using language that makes it seem such.
Isn’t it actually “naïve”?
Diacritics are not part of the English alphabet, so it’s just alternate spelling.
Is that true? Definitely useful though. The diacritical lets you know that it is two syllables, that the "a" and the "i" are separate.
That's a cool word i didn't know. Thanks.
The NYT uses them though
They’re not the arbiters of English.
Hahaha fair, i didn't know how to get the umlaut though.
[deleted]
Complaining that someone commented on something that literally exists (and in a non-trivial position: the title) seems like the opposite of good epistemic guidelines.
But it might be an interesting lens to look through, to examine if many of the examples of alternate tactics employed successfully in the past, when analyzed from this perspective, might have indeed acquired much of their potency by "inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." How various tactics manage to succeed or fail is not always obvious on their surface.
Wonderful point. But can I ask you a honest question I’d ask anyone that posted here. Did you read the whole article?
I think your point is valid and I also wonder how much of our problem is “hyperbolic language”
>I think your point is valid and I also wonder how much of our problem is “hyperbolic language”.
Or more generically: language that demonstrably does not match shared reality. Unfortunately, a widely distributed meme prevents that form of valid criticism.
Whoever designed this Matrix seems to have brought their A-Game. 😁
Nieve was naive to think she could take on Glough.
Be careful with the word tactic. The word is a form of philosophical poetry
Be careful with the word true. It’s an exaggeration term
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments