4 ms·

surely this has got to be the edgiest comment on HN. > 'surely'? - how does one justify saying that? life is the superset of all possible experiences. If any

surely this has got to be the edgiest comment on HN. > 'surely'? - how does one justify saying that? life is the superset of all possible experiences. If any element has a property (i.e. is deep) it will be contained within life. I don't think anyone is trying to take anything away from your tragedy, but we are discussing semantics. Life can be "not very deep" and still be the deepest thing in existence, by definition.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fapjacks 6y ago
But then by definition it is also necessarily ("surely") the least "profound" and "magical" thing anyone ever experiences.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
My plaint is really about semantics. So let's discuss that, especially as you mentioned it. Also let's be clear: this is about clarity and good use of language. I don't like sloppy use of English in any context. Clarity matters. I'll try to leave out my life experiences except where relevant. I suppose we have to start with that. The original comment I was replying to said life was great (I summarise). Without qualification it covered everyone's lives (mathematically it was implicitly universally quantified), and said life is great. No it's not, not universally, and it can be quite the opposite. In many cases yes it's lovely (or I hope so!) but you cannot speak for everybody. Therefore, don't. Further, if you talk about existence ("Surely life is the most...") then you cover animal's lives. Do they have magical and profound existences? Point is not to answer that but to say be careful what you drag in with lax pronouncements. I'll not take the animal thing further. So, 'profound' - I asked what this means and have not got a reply. This is about semantics, so what are the semantics of this word, in this context? I literally do not know. Words like this are too easily used without thought. There's nothing profound (I assume defined as having hidden depths or meanings) for me about waking up in the morning, going to work etc. It's just life. If you break it down this way I suspect most people would say the same. The phrase The Daily Grind is a bit cynical and used thoughtlessly too, but it suggests another side to the coin. So what does 'profound' mean here, and is it justified. It needn't be a complex or long answer, but if words matter, this matters. OK, 'magical'. If you're american (I'm a brit) this kind of pretty but ultimately empty (or at least ill-defined) word gets broadcast at you from an early age by disney. It just gets parroted back. When I hear more disney turds about how Precious Family Is, ruthlessly equating family with something wonderful (which I assume it often is, I hope so!) then I tend to well up with either disgust or dry, bitter cackling laughter. I probably sound like macbeth's witches. That's not about semantics so much as using words properly, to mean something. I've read some philosophy that is just a tangle of words because the writer is not clear themselves on how to justify a thing and are really trying to fog things up like a squid with its ink (conversely I picked up a book by some philosopher and it was wonderfully clear. You might not agree but at least you could get exactly what he was saying, and with that comprehension, you could agree or not, but at least you knew why). All I'm asking for is clear, thoughtful and justified use of words to clearly express ideas. I guess this is the basics of philosophy, so it's relevant especially here.
- kidintech 6y ago
  I am not a philosophy grad nor is English my native language so I am sorry but I am not educated enough to continue this discussion. I agree with you that he could have been more specific, but I do not agree with > said life was great (I summarise). In my interpretation of their comment, I took it to mean life has the potential to be great. For the other two terms I have no opinion, will leave that to OP. But damn, if this is at all representative to what studying philosophy is like, isn't it exhausting?
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    > But damn, if this is at all representative to what studying philosophy is like, isn't it exhausting? Worthless slop is worthless. To make it worth something you need to be precise. Yes, it can be, not exhausting, but sometimes tedious. But that attention to detail is necessary in any constructive endeavor be it software, hardware, mathematics, engineering, governing, why do you think philosophy should be any different? The end results can be worth it. I used to argue a lot with someone, it's only when we agreed to be precise about what we were saying that we got anywhere (to be precise 'got anywhere' = 'started to understand each other's positions and assumptions'). Edit: trying to debate with someone who can only respond with emotionally based certainties and often descends into shouting and blank denials is a wearing and disheartening experience. Also not useful if you're arguing about important things like, I dunno, what to do about pandemics.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fapjacks 6y ago

But then by definition it is also necessarily ("surely") the least "profound" and "magical" thing anyone ever experiences.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

My plaint is really about semantics. So let's discuss that, especially as you mentioned it. Also let's be clear: this is about clarity and good use of language. I don't like sloppy use of English in any context. Clarity matters. I'll try to leave out my life experiences except where relevant. I suppose we have to start with that. The original comment I was replying to said life was great (I summarise). Without qualification it covered everyone's lives (mathematically it was implicitly universally quantified), and said life is great. No it's not, not universally, and it can be quite the opposite. In many cases yes it's lovely (or I hope so!) but you cannot speak for everybody. Therefore, don't. Further, if you talk about existence ("Surely life is the most...") then you cover animal's lives. Do they have magical and profound existences? Point is not to answer that but to say be careful what you drag in with lax pronouncements. I'll not take the animal thing further. So, 'profound' - I asked what this means and have not got a reply. This is about semantics, so what are the semantics of this word, in this context? I literally do not know. Words like this are too easily used without thought. There's nothing profound (I assume defined as having hidden depths or meanings) for me about waking up in the morning, going to work etc. It's just life. If you break it down this way I suspect most people would say the same. The phrase The Daily Grind is a bit cynical and used thoughtlessly too, but it suggests another side to the coin. So what does 'profound' mean here, and is it justified. It needn't be a complex or long answer, but if words matter, this matters. OK, 'magical'. If you're american (I'm a brit) this kind of pretty but ultimately empty (or at least ill-defined) word gets broadcast at you from an early age by disney. It just gets parroted back. When I hear more disney turds about how Precious Family Is, ruthlessly equating family with something wonderful (which I assume it often is, I hope so!) then I tend to well up with either disgust or dry, bitter cackling laughter. I probably sound like macbeth's witches. That's not about semantics so much as using words properly, to mean something. I've read some philosophy that is just a tangle of words because the writer is not clear themselves on how to justify a thing and are really trying to fog things up like a squid with its ink (conversely I picked up a book by some philosopher and it was wonderfully clear. You might not agree but at least you could get exactly what he was saying, and with that comprehension, you could agree or not, but at least you knew why). All I'm asking for is clear, thoughtful and justified use of words to clearly express ideas. I guess this is the basics of philosophy, so it's relevant especially here.

kidintech 6y ago
I am not a philosophy grad nor is English my native language so I am sorry but I am not educated enough to continue this discussion. I agree with you that he could have been more specific, but I do not agree with > said life was great (I summarise). In my interpretation of their comment, I took it to mean life has the potential to be great. For the other two terms I have no opinion, will leave that to OP. But damn, if this is at all representative to what studying philosophy is like, isn't it exhausting?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > But damn, if this is at all representative to what studying philosophy is like, isn't it exhausting? Worthless slop is worthless. To make it worth something you need to be precise. Yes, it can be, not exhausting, but sometimes tedious. But that attention to detail is necessary in any constructive endeavor be it software, hardware, mathematics, engineering, governing, why do you think philosophy should be any different? The end results can be worth it. I used to argue a lot with someone, it's only when we agreed to be precise about what we were saying that we got anywhere (to be precise 'got anywhere' = 'started to understand each other's positions and assumptions'). Edit: trying to debate with someone who can only respond with emotionally based certainties and often descends into shouting and blank denials is a wearing and disheartening experience. Also not useful if you're arguing about important things like, I dunno, what to do about pandemics.