6 ms·

"Just playing word games," he's a writer! Not everything written is documentation.

by nnvvhh 6y ago

acdha 6y ago
He’s a writer, sure, but that doesn’t mean that bad writing is not fair game for criticism. Redefining words is a common technique in this style of apologetics to avoid having to engage with an argument intellectually and it being used by a famous writer doesn’t make it more worthy.
- Daishiman 6y ago
  No it isn't. I'm sorry but not all writing needs pedants nitpicking to get the point across. The point is extremely clear and you can argue about the nuance but there is no hidden meaning or contradiction here.
  - acdha 6y ago
    As evidenced by this entire thread, the point isn't extremely clear _because_ of the writing. I don't think it's just a question of nuance, either, both because he was far too skilled a writer to be unfamiliar with common English vocabulary and it's very much following in a tradition of writing from people who are uncomfortable with wanting to believe in something which they can't justify on the evidence (the very definition of religious faith — see e.g. Hebrews 11:1). Some people react to that by rejecting facts but others take an approach of basically arguing that nobody is purely rational and therefore they can believe what they want, giving them carte blanche to believe things they suspect but don't want to admit are just human creations. As a former fundamentalist, I've seen quite a few examples of that — a very popular one is trying to equate faith or relief in science as being equivalent to their religious counterparts. Given DFW's history of depression, having rejected his parents' atheism, and having relied on AA in his struggle with addition, I am quite inclined to believe that the latter explanation is true in this case as well. I can understand why he wanted to have a special belief system which would be constructive as a break from the painful destructive behavior he was all too familiar with but that makes it the desperate longings of a broken person rather than a divine truth.
    - nfw2 6y ago
      The point is much more clear when taken in context with the longer speech. When taken out of context it confuses the central point. The statement about atheists not existing is hyperbole used in passing. He doesn't mean there is absolutely no difference between religious and unreligious people. He means they are often similar in non-obvious ways. The central point of the full speech is that people should be intentional about what they choose to think and care about. It's not too far from stoicism which seems pretty popular in SV/HN. The chain of points from this passage back to this central point are: - Atheists and religious people are similar in that they both have a need to find meaning in their life. - The alternatives that people find for sources of meaning (power, money, looks, etc) are often psychologically harmful. - These harmful sources of meaning are often adopted by us unconsciously ("by default"). - It is important to be intentional about what we care about because if we are not, we will default to the harmful sources of meaning. I agree that there is likely some projection of DFW's own psychological issues onto non-religious people at large, and that a lot of people can live happy lives without some form of veneration. On the other hand, I think his advice is useful for some. I personally find his message about choosing your values intentionally valuable. ---- Even when taken in context, I admit his writing isn't super clear to a general audience. DFW was fond of experimental writing and also believed that writing should be tailored to the audience. His audience in this case was a liberal arts college, so he may have felt comfortable stretching his use of language.
      - acdha 6y ago
        > The alternatives that people find for sources of meaning (power, money, looks, etc) are often psychologically harmful. This why I generally lean towards the “sloppy writing” conclusion — it is indeed useful to consider your values carefully, but trying to dunk on atheists both confused the language and lead to the incorrect claim that religious beliefs are less harmful than secular ones which is easily disproven by talking to people who were mistreated by friends or family members who saw that as a religious requirement (e.g. many gay people) or whose religion embraced the same harmful behaviors (e.g. some state religions or cults, the prosperity gospel, etc.). Better writing could avoid that distraction by focusing on the common harmful classes of behavior and how to recognize those patterns in any particular system. I don’t see this as experimental language use because it’s so far from novel in this particular context and the net effect is to obscure the point rather than reach some deeper understanding.
- nnvvhh 6y ago
  Since you are so hung up on denotations, may I suggest a couple of official, sanctioned, orthodox definitions (right up your alley) of words the dwelling upon of which might wrench you from your obstinance: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connotation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connotation and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic.
  - acdha 6y ago
    What positive outcome did you expect from a late reply containing nothing of substance? You’ve had 4 days to overcome the initial emotional reaction, why not try for something more?
    - nnvvhh 6y ago
      No substance? Come on now, I thought it clearly communicated my opinion that you were being pedantic in focusing so narrowly on the denotations of English words. Words like "worship" often define fuzzy concepts and do not define things as precise as a function signature. The response to the original quote is so silly to me that I am compelled to continue replying. To ignore the quote's thrust and have your reading be short circuited by its "redefining" of words, especially given that it is a snippet of a wider work, making the initial criticism all the sillier, is too fun to ignore.

"Just playing word games," he's a writer! Not everything written is documentation.

by nnvvhh 6y ago

"Just playing word games," he's a writer! Not everything written is documentation.

He’s a writer, sure, but that doesn’t mean that bad writing is not fair game for criticism. Redefining words is a common technique in this style of apologetics to avoid having to engage with an argument intellectually and it being used by a famous writer doesn’t make it more worthy.

Daishiman 6y ago
No it isn't. I'm sorry but not all writing needs pedants nitpicking to get the point across. The point is extremely clear and you can argue about the nuance but there is no hidden meaning or contradiction here.
- acdha 6y ago
  As evidenced by this entire thread, the point isn't extremely clear _because_ of the writing. I don't think it's just a question of nuance, either, both because he was far too skilled a writer to be unfamiliar with common English vocabulary and it's very much following in a tradition of writing from people who are uncomfortable with wanting to believe in something which they can't justify on the evidence (the very definition of religious faith — see e.g. Hebrews 11:1). Some people react to that by rejecting facts but others take an approach of basically arguing that nobody is purely rational and therefore they can believe what they want, giving them carte blanche to believe things they suspect but don't want to admit are just human creations. As a former fundamentalist, I've seen quite a few examples of that — a very popular one is trying to equate faith or relief in science as being equivalent to their religious counterparts. Given DFW's history of depression, having rejected his parents' atheism, and having relied on AA in his struggle with addition, I am quite inclined to believe that the latter explanation is true in this case as well. I can understand why he wanted to have a special belief system which would be constructive as a break from the painful destructive behavior he was all too familiar with but that makes it the desperate longings of a broken person rather than a divine truth.
  - nfw2 6y ago
    The point is much more clear when taken in context with the longer speech. When taken out of context it confuses the central point. The statement about atheists not existing is hyperbole used in passing. He doesn't mean there is absolutely no difference between religious and unreligious people. He means they are often similar in non-obvious ways. The central point of the full speech is that people should be intentional about what they choose to think and care about. It's not too far from stoicism which seems pretty popular in SV/HN. The chain of points from this passage back to this central point are: - Atheists and religious people are similar in that they both have a need to find meaning in their life. - The alternatives that people find for sources of meaning (power, money, looks, etc) are often psychologically harmful. - These harmful sources of meaning are often adopted by us unconsciously ("by default"). - It is important to be intentional about what we care about because if we are not, we will default to the harmful sources of meaning. I agree that there is likely some projection of DFW's own psychological issues onto non-religious people at large, and that a lot of people can live happy lives without some form of veneration. On the other hand, I think his advice is useful for some. I personally find his message about choosing your values intentionally valuable. ---- Even when taken in context, I admit his writing isn't super clear to a general audience. DFW was fond of experimental writing and also believed that writing should be tailored to the audience. His audience in this case was a liberal arts college, so he may have felt comfortable stretching his use of language.
    - acdha 6y ago
      > The alternatives that people find for sources of meaning (power, money, looks, etc) are often psychologically harmful. This why I generally lean towards the “sloppy writing” conclusion — it is indeed useful to consider your values carefully, but trying to dunk on atheists both confused the language and lead to the incorrect claim that religious beliefs are less harmful than secular ones which is easily disproven by talking to people who were mistreated by friends or family members who saw that as a religious requirement (e.g. many gay people) or whose religion embraced the same harmful behaviors (e.g. some state religions or cults, the prosperity gospel, etc.). Better writing could avoid that distraction by focusing on the common harmful classes of behavior and how to recognize those patterns in any particular system. I don’t see this as experimental language use because it’s so far from novel in this particular context and the net effect is to obscure the point rather than reach some deeper understanding.
nnvvhh 6y ago
Since you are so hung up on denotations, may I suggest a couple of official, sanctioned, orthodox definitions (right up your alley) of words the dwelling upon of which might wrench you from your obstinance: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connotation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connotation and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic.
- acdha 6y ago
  What positive outcome did you expect from a late reply containing nothing of substance? You’ve had 4 days to overcome the initial emotional reaction, why not try for something more?
  - nnvvhh 6y ago
    No substance? Come on now, I thought it clearly communicated my opinion that you were being pedantic in focusing so narrowly on the denotations of English words. Words like "worship" often define fuzzy concepts and do not define things as precise as a function signature. The response to the original quote is so silly to me that I am compelled to continue replying. To ignore the quote's thrust and have your reading be short circuited by its "redefining" of words, especially given that it is a snippet of a wider work, making the initial criticism all the sillier, is too fun to ignore.