3 ms·

I like Terry Pratchett, and Hogfather, a lot, but it's worth remembering that it's entertainment, and not philosophy. For example, it's possible to construct t

I like Terry Pratchett, and Hogfather, a lot, but it's worth remembering that it's entertainment, and not philosophy. For example, it's possible to construct the same reductionist argument about market economics (or any other conceptual discipline): the concepts have no physical existence beyond patterns of neurons and electrical signals in our minds, electrical patterns in our machines, and the ink on the pages of books we've created. Grind all of those down and there would be no trace of market economics. And yet, the effects of market economics are all around us. So is it real or not? If you did the grinding experiment you'd also find no trace of life left in the powder, especially not if you take it to its logical conclusion at the subatomic level. Does that mean there is no such thing as life?

pjc50 6y ago
> worth remembering that it's entertainment, and not philosophy. It's absolutely both. I think a lot more people would cite Pratchett as a direct influence on their philosophy of life than you'd expect. > is it real or not? Yes, this is a convincing argument against both reductionism and the unqualified use of "real". Emergent and non-atomisable things have to be considered as "real" for reasoning purposes or you collapse in a pile of logic.
- bartread 6y ago
  > I think a lot more people would cite Pratchett as a direct influence on their philosophy of life than you'd expect. I don't doubt you're right, but that doesn't make it a necessarily great idea. And, by the way, I'm not dismissing every philosophical point wrapped up in a Pratchett novel as nonsense (for one thing, I can't remember them all, and there are a few of his books I haven't read). But I am saying that in this specific instance the argument is weak and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Still, I stand by my point: the main purpose of these books is that they're fun, not that they're a handbook for thinking and living.

pjc50 6y ago

> worth remembering that it's entertainment, and not philosophy. It's absolutely both. I think a lot more people would cite Pratchett as a direct influence on their philosophy of life than you'd expect. > is it real or not? Yes, this is a convincing argument against both reductionism and the unqualified use of "real". Emergent and non-atomisable things have to be considered as "real" for reasoning purposes or you collapse in a pile of logic.

bartread 6y ago
> I think a lot more people would cite Pratchett as a direct influence on their philosophy of life than you'd expect. I don't doubt you're right, but that doesn't make it a necessarily great idea. And, by the way, I'm not dismissing every philosophical point wrapped up in a Pratchett novel as nonsense (for one thing, I can't remember them all, and there are a few of his books I haven't read). But I am saying that in this specific instance the argument is weak and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Still, I stand by my point: the main purpose of these books is that they're fun, not that they're a handbook for thinking and living.