0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by JamesFaville (elephantiskon) · 2018-01-11T20:03:38.393Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm downvoting this post because I don't understand it even after your reply above, and the amount of negative karma currently on the post indicates to me that it's probably not my fault. It's possible to write a poetic and meaningful post about a topic and pleasant when someone has done so well, but I think you're better off first trying to state explicitly whatever you're trying to state to make sure the ideas are fundamentally plausible. I'm skeptical that meditations on a topic of this character are actually helpful to truth-seeking, but I might be typical-minding you.
Replies from: vnm↑ comment by vnm · 2018-01-12T04:32:43.468Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Can
Replies from: elephantiskon↑ comment by JamesFaville (elephantiskon) · 2018-01-12T05:38:43.395Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Essentially, I read this as an attempt at continental philosophy rather than analytic philosophy, and I don't find continental-style work very interesting or useful. I believe you that the post is meaningful and thoughtful, but the costs of time or effort to understand the meanings or thoughts you're driving at are too high for me at least. I think trying to lay things out in a more organized and explicit manner would be helpful for your readers and possibly for you in developing these thoughts.
I don't want to get too precise about answering the above unless you're still interested in me doing so and don't mind me stating things in a way that might come across as pretty rude. Also, limiting myself to one more reply here since I should really stop procrastinating work, and just in case.
Replies from: vnm↑ comment by vnm · 2018-01-12T05:59:51.496Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Essentially, I read this as an attempt at continental philosophy rather than analytic philosophy, and I don't find continental-style work very interesting or useful.
That's your personal opinion about their works. Continental rationalists have been useful to so many.
I believe you that the post is meaningful and thoughtful, but the costs of time or effort to understand the meanings or thoughts you're driving at are too high for me at least.
So you'd dismiss any work based on the return on investment ratio?
I think trying to lay things out in a more organized and explicit manner would be helpful for your readers and possibly for you in developing these thoughts.
Not all thoughts need to be explicit, especially when describing links between ideas.
Have you ever watched the series Connections <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections (TV_series)>? If not I would highly advise watching it.
Replies from: Viliam↑ comment by Viliam · 2018-01-17T01:33:00.296Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So you'd dismiss any work based on the return on investment ratio?
What is the alternative? Reading and thinking about literally everything is not an option, because time is limited.
If your ideas are difficult to read because you are not good at writing clearly, you have my sympathies. But if you want readership, you have to learn to write better.
However, if you write unclearly on purpose, well... I can imagine various reasons to do so, but I have negative reaction to most of them. For example, making your ideas less clear can be a defense against falsification (if you never say "X", only hint towards it, people who agree with X will give you credit, while people do disagree with X may give you the benefit of doubt that perhaps you actually meant something else). Or it could be a blatant status move (I am so important that spending 3 hours trying to decipher my article is still the best use of 3 hours of your time).
comment by Gyrodiot · 2018-01-11T15:52:49.302Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks for this post.
I'm not sure what is your central point, what is the component you announce at the start of the post. I understood that life contains a spectrum of situations we have more or less control over, that perfect control or perfect lack of control all the time is not desirable, and that we ought to have a wide range of experiences along that dimension to have enjoyable lives.
Did I miss something? Can you clarify your conclusions?
Replies from: vnm