Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CaseyTS t1_j02pv9b wrote

Reply to comment by elmo85 in Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak

That's not the meaning of 'seriousness' in English, though. That's my point. This author is using 'seriousness' as a stand-in for being committed to rules or being closedminded. Just refer to the thing itself or make a new word rather than defining a word that already has a different, relevant definition.

Literally, that's not a definition of seriousness. Defining seriousness such that serious things and people are always closed-minded really seems like a bad idea. Seems very closed-minded in itself.

2

elmo85 t1_j02tb0a wrote

I think you are too serious about the meaning of that word.

10

CaseyTS t1_j03lkqs wrote

Similar response to someone else:

Yes, language changes naturally over time. If it is an intentional change on his part, I think it's a bad change.

What do we call our old version of "seriousness" now? Why change it, why lose it? Why tie up "closedmindedness", which we have a word for, with a related but totally distinct thing?

He's conflating two different things and using then using one of those two things to denounce the other. I do not abide that in an essay about openmindedness. He absolutely didn't have to choose a specific, different word.

1

sovietmcdavid t1_j03x8w1 wrote

Someone is downvoting you for simply asking why the author of the article needlessly tortures the meaning of a word. This sub is too serious... lol

1

RaphaelAmbrosius t1_j02uuah wrote

Language is fluid and changes constantly. All of human history can tell you that. Why is this specific situation so different?

6

CaseyTS t1_j03li28 wrote

Yes, language changes naturally over time. If it is an intentional change on his part, I think it's a bad change.

What do we call our old version of "seriousness" now? Why change it, why lose it? Why tie up "closedmindedness", which we have a word for, with a related but totally distinct thing?

He's conflating two different things and using then using one of those two things to denounce the other. I do not abide that in an essay about openmindedness.

1