Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taboo Your Words (2008)

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)

#41

Post by kazagistar »

eruditely wrote: post #29
JackFr wrote: post #6

Very similar to if-by-whiskey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous,…

Honestly even if this manipulative speak I still love reading this every time. Disclaimer: obviously manipulative speak is generally bad if not always

Obviously manipulative does not seem like much of a threat at all. Effectively manipulative is a threat, and is usually subtle, as opposed to obvious.

Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)

#42

Post by derleth »

cgore wrote: post #40
derleth wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "anything vaguely resembling trinitarianism". So they exclude Jehovah's Witnesses, then. Not really all-inclusive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals, various others. Being all-inclusive isn't the point, nor should it be. If you want my personal definition of "Christian", it's this: 1. There is a god. 2. I'm not it, and neither are you. 3. Jesus is. 4. Therefore, Jesus is the boss. After that, all the rest just sort of flows out of it. It is amazing how many doctrinal issues either instantly disappear or don't eve…

> Therefore, Jesus is the boss.

Meh. My boss can't tell me how to live my life. My boss's authority ends precisely where I'm no longer doing what they're paying me to do.

My point is that, even in your simplified theology, there is still a lot of room for debates. And, in religion, debates turn into bloody warfare, because this is peace and love we're talking about, and peace and love really matter.

Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)

#43

Post by avn2109 »

derleth wrote: post #42
cgore wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals, various others. Being all-inclusive isn't the point, nor should it be. If you want my personal definition of "Christian", it's this: 1. There is a god. 2. I'm not it, and neither are you. 3. Jesus is. 4. Therefore, Jesus is the boss. After that, all the rest just sort of flows out of it. It is amazing how many doctrinal issues either instantly disappear or don't eve…

> Therefore, Jesus is the boss. Meh. My boss can't tell me how to live my life. My boss's authority ends precisely where I'm no longer doing what they're paying me to do. My point is that, even in your simplified theology, there is still a lot of room for debates. And, in religion, debates turn into bloody warfare, because this is peace and love we're talking about, and peace and love really matter.

Much has been made lately about how HN comment quality is declining, but it seems to me that we're still the civilest, most on-topic bunch around. As exhibit A I submit the fact that this thread has not devolved into a silly Theological pissing contest and is instead still relevant to the OP. Touche, HN, touche.

Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)

#44

Post by daveid »

denom wrote: post #36
TylerJay wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, the reason Wittgenstein ultimately rejected this picture, as in rejected describing the meaning of words by formal definition, is that it doesn't accurately describe the way language is used in practice, and leads us to misunderstand situations. I don't think the author is really trying to give a "formal definition" of the meaning of words. The point he is trying to make is that while people may claim to…

How are arguments structured? Which words are meaningless? Who is in a position of authority to determine which words need tabooing? The author's unfortunate choice of the word "Taboo" to describe this procedure of clarifying meaning reflects an implied ideological stance. He takes the role of a curator, the vanguard of the "rationalist virtue of empiricism". It's much like Richard Dawkins and others who adopt positi…

The author's choice of the word "Taboo" refers to the game called "Taboo" described in the first paragraph. It does not imply any special ideological stance.

Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)

#45

Post by rjknight »

gabemart wrote: post #9
MichaelGG wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it changes a lot of peoples thoughts about the question. It moves it from a "let's play with the concept of sound" to a basic question of induction and physics. At that point, why not ask how can we be sure the tree actually fell at all? If you chase that rabbit hole, it probably devolves into arguing about what "know" and "is" and "sure" "actually mean".

I disagree. I don't think the original plays with the concept of sound, I think it plays with the concept of an objective reality. I don't think the thought experiment is substantially different in effect if it's changed to "does a tree fall in the forest if no-one is there to see it" or "does a tree have rough bark in the forest if no-one is there to feel it".

Or "do bears shit in the woods?"

Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)

#47

Post by James_Duval »

simondedalus wrote: post #33

This article is RAGE-fuel for anyone with > 101 experience with analytic philosophy of language. It's the theory of reference equivalent of "Your epistemology is bad because an evil demon might be fooling you." "Whoa."

I think it's supposed to be useful insight into how you can improve your approach to daily life, nothing more -- at least in the context of being posted to Hacker News, that's what it is. It's a dirty cognitive hack to help you look past high-level concepts rather than anything academic.

Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)

#48

Post by denom »

daveid wrote: post #44
denom wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are arguments structured? Which words are meaningless? Who is in a position of authority to determine which words need tabooing? The author's unfortunate choice of the word "Taboo" to describe this procedure of clarifying meaning reflects an implied ideological stance. He takes the role of a curator, the vanguard of the "rationalist virtue of empiricism". It's much like Richard Dawkins and others who adopt positi…

The author's choice of the word "Taboo" refers to the game called "Taboo" described in the first paragraph. It does not imply any special ideological stance.

It's clear that the author is not referring to the game Taboo:

> The illusion of unity across religions can be dispelled by making the term "God" taboo, and asking them to say what it is they believe in; or making the word "faith" taboo, and asking them why they believe it.

He chooses to not represent certain things in language, but if we are operating in a situation where science has not or cannot make firm pronouncements, how do we act? The approach he is presenting is akin to just slicing off the fuzzy corners of a map, since by his estimation the clear parts are the only _real_ map. How we cut off those chunks of the map is arbitrary, and in that sense belies the ideological background of whoever employs this technique.

Re: Taboo Your Words (2008)

#50

Post by jarrett »

cgore wrote: post #40
derleth wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "anything vaguely resembling trinitarianism". So they exclude Jehovah's Witnesses, then. Not really all-inclusive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals, various others. Being all-inclusive isn't the point, nor should it be. If you want my personal definition of "Christian", it's this: 1. There is a god. 2. I'm not it, and neither are you. 3. Jesus is. 4. Therefore, Jesus is the boss. After that, all the rest just sort of flows out of it. It is amazing how many doctrinal issues either instantly disappear or don't eve…

As the article points out, it doesn't get us very far to use loaded, imprecise words like "god." Points 2 through 3 all depend on 1, which in turn depends on the word "god." So, for that definition of Christianity to be workable, we'd need to define "god" more precisely while avoiding equally vague terms, per the article's recommended procedure.
Post reply on HN