5 ms·
My favourite Wittgenstein quote: "A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring."
by codeulike 8y ago
My favourite Wittgenstein quote:
"A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring."
- wallace_f 8y agoHe's right. Modern intellectual and political aversion to open competition and experimentation is, at best, unethical.
- halfjew22 8y agoAnd is certainly a reflection of people's lack of REAL confidence in themselves. This, combined with our ironically deteriorating ability to communicate in a digital age is leading down not such a bright road.
- danharaj 8y agoCould you elaborate?
- pjc50 8y agoI suspect he's talking about people's refusal to "debate" whether they should be subjected to suffering, discrimination, abuse, etc.
- halfjew222 8y agoAs the other comment points out, people aren’t willing to challenge themselves but also feign a confidence about themselves due to various factors such as economic and societal pressures. Admitting you have no idea most of the time is probably more accurate (estimate is obviously a reasonably afauirable skill) but that’s not what boss man is looking for. I think this also evidences itself in the prevalence of imposter theory, especially in younger generations. The reason the saying goes, “that feeling never goes away” is because we all operate outwardly as if we are more expert than we are and begin to believe that lie. Does that clarify?
- danharaj 8y agoNo, not really. It's still rather vague to me. Could you give me a concrete example?
- halfjew222 8y agoSure! If you look at the levels of reported 'imposter syndrome', there is a noted rise over the last few years. I'm assuming here that you are aware of imposter syndrome and perhaps have felt it at times yourself. I certainly have. To our peers, we pretend we know more than we do to feign this confidence that has almost emerged as necessary since there are so many that can do our jobs as programmers. This feigned confidence manifests as imposter syndrome. Since we can't be honest (and risk management firing us because we're incompetent), we never quite feel like we're 'good enough' for our jobs. Does that help?
- bobthechef 8y agoHuh? I think you have the wrong thread. Besides, pretending to be more competent than you are is fraud. Sounds like "imposter syndrome" as you have defined it is really the guilt of being a fraud, and frankly, it's well deserved because it's true. You should feel guilty for doing evil things. You should feel like an imposter when you are an imposter. The antidote is the courage not to be a fraud and not to be an imposter, not pathologizing it as a "syndrome" or blaming your boss for your own cowardice.
- wallace_f 8y agoCan you relax? Assuming good faith is a rule of HN. What are you trying to accomplish with such an extremely accusatory, and disparaging comment towards a user that--as is obvious in their posts here--is personally struggling. I'm not convinced they are acting in bad faith, and they are certainly not evil, blaming anyone, cowardly, etc, as you assumed. Try to be nice, and ask yourself what value you are adding to others.
- mrleiter 8y agoI wouldn't call it unethical, but unfair. It happens mostly in the more extreme corners of the political spectrum, whether it is right or left. That perspective of non-discussion has gained a strong foothold in the "center" unfortunately, too, recently. I believe many people have the feeling that they haven't been heard and thus are not interested in listening any more. It's not an irreversible trend, I suppose, if each and everyone of us manages to take one step back and start listening again.
- wallace_f 8y agoYea that's what I was thinking, and also along with another idea about experimentation. People on both sides can become even intolerant of the other's rights to their civil libertiea and democratic right of self-governance. What I mean, in practice, is that if a state wants to legalize a plant, run its own healthcare system, well in fact they should be encouraged to do so. We should be to some extent tolerant of these experiments and competition among states in social policy. It is consistent with democracy and what the Founding Fathers intended. But instead everyone wants to command the authority of the central government to demand everyone has to do it their way, and the results end up really egregiously bad as you can see today.
- bobthechef 8y agoYou seem to be assuming a great deal of things axiomatically. All of your claims are subject to philosophical discussion. The "Founding Fathers" are not God. Liberalism, democracy, and civil liberties are not given and obvious goods (Plato saw democracy as the worst form of government and one that degenerates into tyranny, probably more through ethos than procedure).
- watwut 8y agoShouldn't philosopher seek truth and knowledge rather then one-on-one competition of quick wit and reaction?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- codeulike 8y agoIf you never bounce ideas off of anyone else, its too easy to lead yourself down the path of convincing yourself that you are right.
- watwut 8y agoSure, but that is still better in long term writing format then debate, because debate favors more of quick reaction, showmanship and various rhetorical tactics that have zero to do with seeking knowledge. Debates are fun, but they are not for testing ideas.
- codeulike 8y agoI agree with that, but when Wittgenstein says 'discussions' I take that to mean any sort of dialogue, e.g. online
- sramsay 8y agoMine is: "I am sitting with a philosopher in the garden; he says again and again 'I know that that's a tree,' pointing to a tree that is near us. Someone else arrives and hears this, and I tell them: 'This fellow isn't insane. We are only doing philosophy.'"