4 ms·

Isn't that a bit overly reductionist? Cars - I don't really see a significant change. Cars are like [trains, horse carriages, boats] of the past. They provide s

Isn't that a bit overly reductionist? Cars - I don't really see a significant change. Cars are like [trains, horse carriages, boats] of the past. They provide seating for people to travel. People wanting to travel is nothing new either. Airplanes aren't so different from this lens either. But I don't think most people would agree that cars aren't a significant change from railroads or horse-drawn carriages. Likewise, one can become an influencer from their bedroom, quite unlike having to travel to Hollywood (or the country equivalent) to become a movie star.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
What's the implicit problem though with people becoming famous from their house in their pajamas vs becoming famous for being in a highly marketed movie? Can you be certain people worship actors because the actor cultivated a skill? Or rock stars? Maybe influencers are just laying bare the shallow intoxication of fame without a "skill" to mask what a lot of nonsense it is. After all, you can worship Odsy Osbourne and have a para social relationship with him. But if you really respect music, you can go down to your local bar and actually meet people who play nearly just as well but without the glitz and glow.
wiseowise 4y ago
Essence is the same: getting popular.
- oarabbus_ 4y ago
  Right, just like the essence of a car and a horse-drawn carriage is the same: travel. While we're at it, carrier pigeons and telegrams are essentially the same as text messaging (communication), and using the same logic leads us to conclude a bow and arrow is not so different from assault rifles (lethal weapons). Come to think of it, it's pretty strange you can easily acquire a flare but not a grenade or nuclear bomb, they share the same essence after all (explosives)! Point being that "sharing the same essence" doesn't preclude a "significant change" between the entities. It's a reductionist fallacy.

DubiousPusher 4y ago

What's the implicit problem though with people becoming famous from their house in their pajamas vs becoming famous for being in a highly marketed movie? Can you be certain people worship actors because the actor cultivated a skill? Or rock stars? Maybe influencers are just laying bare the shallow intoxication of fame without a "skill" to mask what a lot of nonsense it is. After all, you can worship Odsy Osbourne and have a para social relationship with him. But if you really respect music, you can go down to your local bar and actually meet people who play nearly just as well but without the glitz and glow.

wiseowise 4y ago

Essence is the same: getting popular.

oarabbus_ 4y ago
Right, just like the essence of a car and a horse-drawn carriage is the same: travel. While we're at it, carrier pigeons and telegrams are essentially the same as text messaging (communication), and using the same logic leads us to conclude a bow and arrow is not so different from assault rifles (lethal weapons). Come to think of it, it's pretty strange you can easily acquire a flare but not a grenade or nuclear bomb, they share the same essence after all (explosives)! Point being that "sharing the same essence" doesn't preclude a "significant change" between the entities. It's a reductionist fallacy.