6 ms·

You could easily call this thought experiment Chesterton's Cage. At least that is more honest about the philosophical implications. It's like Plato's allegory o

by reedf1 5y ago

You could easily call this thought experiment Chesterton's Cage. At least that is more honest about the philosophical implications. It's like Plato's allegory of the cave, except the argument is that you should never leave the cave because you don't (and can't) know what's outside.

huetius 5y ago
I have mixed feelings about Chesterton, but I’m not sure this is fair. I think the point is that change is not a good in itself; it’s only good insofar as the new state it brings into being is good. It places contemplation of the good above praxis.
- huetius 5y ago
  Seeing some of the responses in this thread, I think I might want to withdraw, or at least modify this comment. I am going to leave it as is because others have upvoted it, as is. People are trying to interpret the analogy outside of the theological context in which Chesterton wrote, and therefore either reduce it to the kind of relativistic conservatism that GP rightly decries, or else deny what Chesterton actually wrote. Chesterton’s point is that change can be good or destructive. Since evil is not a positively existing thing, but merely a lack of goodness, a lower goodness mistaken for a higher goodness, or vice versa, if I am to act upon something in order to bring it to its full goodness, I have to understand the goodness already in it, otherwise I act in a way that is destructive. In short, I can only be trusted to change a thing if I am able to love it.
rglullis 5y ago
You can know what's outside and you can leave your surroundings. The point is that you should understand first why things are in the way they are before implementing any change.
- reedf1 5y ago
  But the point of my comparison to Plato's allegory of the cave is that there are situations where you can't know. If we applied Chesterton's fence to situations at the limit of our understanding, say physics, would we be compelled to shutdown CERN?
  - rglullis 5y ago
    What are you on about? CERN is an instrument to help us learn more about physics. Bringing it down would not help us make any change, and it would only hinder us from learning more about the truth of nature. You need a better example than that.
    - reedf1 5y ago
      My point is the bounds of reality and knowledge are their own sort of fence. This isn't a stretch, because this is literally the philosophical point of the argument. What if a high energy particle collision causes a miniature blackhole that destroys all life on earth? What if sailing across the uncharted sea makes God angry? What if knocking down the walls of my cage lets the monsters in? What if the act of investigating the fence destroys the fence?
      - rglullis 5y ago
        > This isn't a stretch, because this is literally the philosophical point of the argument. This is reductio ad absurdium. There is a whole lot of contexts and dimensions where the concept of Chesterton's Fence can be applied before trying to dismiss it. If you want a better example, you could ask "why so many religions teach to not eat pork?"[0]. Then we could look at historical contexts (i.e, understanding why it was put up in the first place), realize that most of those don't really apply to the modern world and "tear it down" if you want to enjoy delicious pulled pork sandwich. > What if sailing across the uncharted sea makes God angry? That is not a satisfactory answer to "why can't we explore the seas?", and any rational person would/should continue to investigate. --- [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sew4rctKghY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sew4rctKghY

by reedf1 5y ago

huetius 5y ago

I have mixed feelings about Chesterton, but I’m not sure this is fair. I think the point is that change is not a good in itself; it’s only good insofar as the new state it brings into being is good. It places contemplation of the good above praxis.

huetius 5y ago
Seeing some of the responses in this thread, I think I might want to withdraw, or at least modify this comment. I am going to leave it as is because others have upvoted it, as is. People are trying to interpret the analogy outside of the theological context in which Chesterton wrote, and therefore either reduce it to the kind of relativistic conservatism that GP rightly decries, or else deny what Chesterton actually wrote. Chesterton’s point is that change can be good or destructive. Since evil is not a positively existing thing, but merely a lack of goodness, a lower goodness mistaken for a higher goodness, or vice versa, if I am to act upon something in order to bring it to its full goodness, I have to understand the goodness already in it, otherwise I act in a way that is destructive. In short, I can only be trusted to change a thing if I am able to love it.

rglullis 5y ago

You can know what's outside and you can leave your surroundings. The point is that you should understand first why things are in the way they are before implementing any change.

reedf1 5y ago
But the point of my comparison to Plato's allegory of the cave is that there are situations where you can't know. If we applied Chesterton's fence to situations at the limit of our understanding, say physics, would we be compelled to shutdown CERN?
- rglullis 5y ago
  What are you on about? CERN is an instrument to help us learn more about physics. Bringing it down would not help us make any change, and it would only hinder us from learning more about the truth of nature. You need a better example than that.
  - reedf1 5y ago
    My point is the bounds of reality and knowledge are their own sort of fence. This isn't a stretch, because this is literally the philosophical point of the argument. What if a high energy particle collision causes a miniature blackhole that destroys all life on earth? What if sailing across the uncharted sea makes God angry? What if knocking down the walls of my cage lets the monsters in? What if the act of investigating the fence destroys the fence?
    - rglullis 5y ago
      > This isn't a stretch, because this is literally the philosophical point of the argument. This is reductio ad absurdium. There is a whole lot of contexts and dimensions where the concept of Chesterton's Fence can be applied before trying to dismiss it. If you want a better example, you could ask "why so many religions teach to not eat pork?"[0]. Then we could look at historical contexts (i.e, understanding why it was put up in the first place), realize that most of those don't really apply to the modern world and "tear it down" if you want to enjoy delicious pulled pork sandwich. > What if sailing across the uncharted sea makes God angry? That is not a satisfactory answer to "why can't we explore the seas?", and any rational person would/should continue to investigate. --- [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sew4rctKghY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sew4rctKghY