Posts
Comments
Thank you, that was helpful. I don't see the deathist tones anymore. Now it reads a bit more like 'If I happened to find myself in a world without stars I think I'd adapt,' which reminds me a bit of the Litany of Gendlin and the importance of facing reality. It makes more sense to have it here now.
This is true, and now I have to go back and look at all the anti-deathist quotes I upvoted and examine them more closely for content directly related to rationality. Damn.
The only interpretation I've been able to read into this is that the speaker wants to become more emotionally accepting of death. Am I missing something?
This is interesting, because I've never found 'they' particlulary ugly or awkward. I do like 'it', though I suspect that the 'dehumanizing ring' to it would disappear if it were regularly used to refer to humans. The main reason I use 'they' instead is because, as far as I'm aware, it's accepted by a reasonably large contingent of authorities on the language as grammatically correct. I also find it less awkward than 'he/she' (I never know whether to say "he-she" or "he or she"), and popular alternatives like 'zie' (of which there are too many variations, none of which is used often enough that a general audience will not require an explanation). I think the main problem we'd have no matter what we chose would be effectively encouraging widespread use, and I don't have any very good ideas on how to do this.
If you actually care about the influence on how you treat others, why don't use that as your test whether to hold a belief? Instead of focusing on whether the belief in likely to be true you could focus on whether it's likely to be harm other people.
It can be difficult to know what will be harmful without knowing whether certain things are true.
Hypothetical example: A person kills their child in order to prevent them from committing some kind of sin and going to hell. If this person's beliefs about the existence of hell and how people get in and stay out of it are true, they have saved their child from a great deal of suffering. If their beliefs are not true, they have killed their child for nothing.
I'm not familiar with this term and your link did not clarify as much as I had hoped. Could you give a clearer definition?
Rather than teaching people to privilege other people's mental states as an unknowable quality, I think it makes more sense to encourage people to be aware of their degrees of certainty.
Increased awareness of degrees of certainty is more or less what I was thinking of encouraging. It hadn't occurred to me to look for a deeper motive and try to address it directly. This was helpful, thank you.
This is good to know, and makes me wonder whether there's a way to encourage this kind of thinking in other populations. My only thought so far has been "get yourself involved with the production of the most widely-used primary school language textbooks in your area."
Thoughts?
I answered Sometimes. For me the 'foundational belief' in question is usually along the lines: "Goal (x) is worth the effort of subgoal/process (y)." These moods usually last less than 6 months, and I have a hunch that they're hormonal in nature. I've yet to systematically gather data on the factors that seem most likely to be causing them, mostly because it doesn't seem worth the effort right now. Hah. Seriously, though, I have in fact been convinced that I need to work out a consistent utility function, but when I think about the work involved, I just... blah.
You could argue that the silence of the author and the woman behind the couple is an example of the bystander effect.