4 ms·
While technically true, this way of looking at the world feels a little pedantic. Yes, all words and objects and categories are only leaky abstractions. Our un
by Radim 8y ago
While technically true, this way of looking at the world feels a little pedantic.
Yes, all words and objects and categories are only leaky abstractions. Our universe is a shimmering swirl of unique patterns, all boundaries ultimately fuzzy.
At the same time, there is observable structure. Words and categories emerge and are judged by their usefulness, how they help us in everyday life -- despite being leaky abstractions. They're never bulletproof descriptions of reality, or you wouldn't be able to say much.
"Jock" vs "nerd", "white" vs "black", "tiger" vs "rock"… Among the infinite axes of how to slice and conceptualize reality, which ones are worth giving a name to? Who decides?
- colordrops 8y agoMaybe it's pedantic for you, but it's not pedantic for me and others that are precisely the ones who are stuck in the middle of these vague definitions. I'm called both white and colored in different contexts. It often feels like I get many of the disadvantages of being "colored" while also losing out on opportunities due to my supposed "white privilege".
- Radim 8y agoNo doubt. Being uncomfortably stuck in the middle propels action, which is the only thing able to bring about change. What I was trying to say is that uncomfortable, leaky abstractions are absolutely standard. Is a virus alive or inanimate? Are physics and chemistry distinct disciplines? When does an embryo become a human being? I wasn't being snarky with my "who decides?". If your actions to change established concepts and words manage to overcome the perceived utility of these concepts and words for others, people will change their vocabulary and the way they view the world. It's happened before. It is an elaborate dance of utility, so keep fighting.