Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024·Ideas
Activity
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork (p. 39).
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes to draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork (p. 39). They also helped develop Greek science, including math and astronomy (p. 40).
#3572·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 1 month agoHistorically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork.
Superseded by #3574.
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork.
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork (p. 39).
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork.
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
When ideas “conflict, then at best only one of them can be true.” (P. 39)
Even without a common framework, people usually share problems, “such as the problems of survival.” (P. 38) But even if they don’t, they can still learn from each other. Success “will depend largely on our goodwill, and to some extent also on our historical situation, and on our problem situation.”
A fruitful discussion between people of different frameworks is possible, but we should not expect too much (p. 37).
Don’t expect to find agreement! If we learn “new and interesting arguments”, then even if they are “inconclusive”, the discussion is still fruitful. It can take “time and patience”.
[W]e should look with tolerance and even with respect upon customs or conventional laws that differ from our own.
#3565·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 month agoThe myth Popper criticizes, in one sentence:
A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.
By ‘framework’, Popper means an intellectual framework (as opposed to, say, certain attitudes like a desire to find truth).
Popper grants that the myth has a “kernel of truth” (p. 35). A fruitful discussion can be hard without a common framework. But it’s not impossible.
A discussion is fruitful if people learn. The more their views differ, the more they can learn from each other!
The myth Popper criticizes, in one sentence:
A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.
By ‘framework’, Popper means an intellectual framework (as opposed to, say, certain attitudes like a desire to find truth).
Full citation: Popper, Karl. The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality. Kindle Edition.
Tradition is important, but:
[O]rthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement.
(defn add [a b](if (zero? b)a(recur (inc a) (dec b))))
If the court can force people to be jurors because it needs jurors, why can’t it also force people to be judges, lawyers, prosecutors, etc? Why can’t it force carpenters to make tables, chairs, and gavels? Etc. Why draw the line at jurors? Seems absurd.
#3542·Erik Orrje, about 1 month agoElaboration:
The conflict in addiction is between short-term and long-term solutions.
The preference for short-term in addiction is caused by uncertainty/an inability to make predictions based on explanations.
This uncertainty can be real (e.g. increased heroin addiction during the Vietnam War) or learned from insecurity during one's early years.
Interesting. Do you think the conflict is always between short vs long-term preferences, or could there be addictive conflicts between two short-term preferences or even two long-term preferences?