4 ms·

Not sure if this is what you're pointing at, but I feel similarly about those who very much enjoy talking about new and different ideas/ perspectives, but are l

Not sure if this is what you're pointing at, but I feel similarly about those who very much enjoy talking about new and different ideas/ perspectives, but are loathe to test out, live out, and integrate new and challenging ideas into their belief systems. It's more like, there's a relegated space in their minds for "ideas to consider and discuss, even agree with and champion," but that relegated space is removed from their core value system, which has no intention to be challenged, tinkered with, examined, and open to replacing faulty mechanisms and functions. Seems like talking about ideas for some is more a form of amusement/ entertainment/ mental stimulation (in the same way recreational or escapist drugs can be mentally stimulating), especially if there are no outward signs & indications that a person is committed to testing out, applying, integrating, and even replacing formerly held and inferior ideas – a process which involves a lot of trial end error, failures, humility, perseverance, and delayed gratification. It might seem open-minded and intellectual, but if across time, there's no change in belief via deeper understanding from considering new and different perspectives, that then results in outward action, then all the talk in the world about ideas and perspectives is just hot air. Maybe that's not Joe Rogan and his loyal audience? I dunno!

golemotron 4y ago
> Not sure if this is what you're pointing at, but I feel similarly about those who very much enjoy talking about new and different ideas/ perspectives, but are loathe to test out, live out, and integrate new and challenging ideas into their belief systems. This sounds very much like philosophy. In general, readers of philosophy enjoy looking at many frames without privileging any particular one.
- tsol 4y ago
  I think it's a common modern/ academic take on philosophy. Traditionally Greek, Christian, Islamic, Chinese, etc philosophers all lived their beliefs.
robocat 4y ago
Echos of https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/criticism-of-criticism-of-criticism https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/criticism-of-criticism...
philwelch 4y ago
It’s useful to be able to run code in a sandboxed environment. Or, in other words, the ideas and values that people live their lives by usually work for them, to some degree. Often in ways that aren’t immediately obvious. Making changes to a working system that one relies on isn’t something to be done lightly. You can see this with a specific subset of psychedelics enthusiasts, who end up completely fracturing their ability to function in reality. Or in people who don’t have a working value and belief system in the first place and end up being preyed on by cults. Human life is infinitely complex. None of us have it figured out, and none of us are going to figure it out even if we lived for a thousand years. What’s the biggest code change you think you can make to a working piece of software without introducing a bug? That entire piece of software is only a fraction as complicated as the human condition. > It might seem open-minded and intellectual, but if across time, there's no change in belief via deeper understanding from considering new and different perspectives, that then results in outward action, then all the talk in the world about ideas and perspectives is just hot air. Sure. Is that so bad? The cautionary tale on the other side of the ledger is every failed attempt to build a utopia based on theory. This sort of thing was one of the leading causes of unnatural death in the 20th century. To be clear, I think it’s definitely possible to err on the other side as well. But erring on the other side looks like being unwilling to play with ideas at all. You need a sandboxed environment if you’re going to play with ideas, and even when an idea is promising enough that you might want to take it out of the sandbox, it’s hard to tell whether that’s because of the merits of the idea or just a vulnerability in your sandbox.
- deebosong 4y ago
  I'm all for sandboxing, experimenting, trying things out and casting things off. What I'm pointing at are people who think they're actually considering ideas as if they're trying to better themselves or understand a situation or concept so as to learn how to integrate it into their consciousness, but really they're just seeking mental stimulation with no intent to grow or take any real meaningful action. If you make no claims to be toying with concepts for the purposes of actually implementing them, I respect your choice to do so since I know what to expect. But I'm more pointing at the types who might like appearing as if they're seriously considering ideas and how to implement them, but in reality they're fairly complacent. The easy solve here would be to not present yourself as if you're actually going to do anything with the concepts you play around with in your head for amusement, and just own up to treating all this as a frivolous mental exercise. There's absolutely value in that, and there's no shame in owning it proudly.

golemotron 4y ago

> Not sure if this is what you're pointing at, but I feel similarly about those who very much enjoy talking about new and different ideas/ perspectives, but are loathe to test out, live out, and integrate new and challenging ideas into their belief systems. This sounds very much like philosophy. In general, readers of philosophy enjoy looking at many frames without privileging any particular one.

tsol 4y ago
I think it's a common modern/ academic take on philosophy. Traditionally Greek, Christian, Islamic, Chinese, etc philosophers all lived their beliefs.

robocat 4y ago

Echos of https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/criticism-of-criticism-of-criticism https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/criticism-of-criticism...

philwelch 4y ago

It’s useful to be able to run code in a sandboxed environment. Or, in other words, the ideas and values that people live their lives by usually work for them, to some degree. Often in ways that aren’t immediately obvious. Making changes to a working system that one relies on isn’t something to be done lightly. You can see this with a specific subset of psychedelics enthusiasts, who end up completely fracturing their ability to function in reality. Or in people who don’t have a working value and belief system in the first place and end up being preyed on by cults. Human life is infinitely complex. None of us have it figured out, and none of us are going to figure it out even if we lived for a thousand years. What’s the biggest code change you think you can make to a working piece of software without introducing a bug? That entire piece of software is only a fraction as complicated as the human condition. > It might seem open-minded and intellectual, but if across time, there's no change in belief via deeper understanding from considering new and different perspectives, that then results in outward action, then all the talk in the world about ideas and perspectives is just hot air. Sure. Is that so bad? The cautionary tale on the other side of the ledger is every failed attempt to build a utopia based on theory. This sort of thing was one of the leading causes of unnatural death in the 20th century. To be clear, I think it’s definitely possible to err on the other side as well. But erring on the other side looks like being unwilling to play with ideas at all. You need a sandboxed environment if you’re going to play with ideas, and even when an idea is promising enough that you might want to take it out of the sandbox, it’s hard to tell whether that’s because of the merits of the idea or just a vulnerability in your sandbox.

deebosong 4y ago
I'm all for sandboxing, experimenting, trying things out and casting things off. What I'm pointing at are people who think they're actually considering ideas as if they're trying to better themselves or understand a situation or concept so as to learn how to integrate it into their consciousness, but really they're just seeking mental stimulation with no intent to grow or take any real meaningful action. If you make no claims to be toying with concepts for the purposes of actually implementing them, I respect your choice to do so since I know what to expect. But I'm more pointing at the types who might like appearing as if they're seriously considering ideas and how to implement them, but in reality they're fairly complacent. The easy solve here would be to not present yourself as if you're actually going to do anything with the concepts you play around with in your head for amusement, and just own up to treating all this as a frivolous mental exercise. There's absolutely value in that, and there's no shame in owning it proudly.