5 ms·

This tone is very common in academic philosophy. I would characterize it as being low in rhetoric and extremely blunt. I don't really see how it sounds like "a

This tone is very common in academic philosophy. I would characterize it as being low in rhetoric and extremely blunt. I don't really see how it sounds like "a high school sophomore".

kelseyfrog 4y ago
In general the argument template is "If you're not 100% committed to realizing a more extreme version of your mission statement than the status quo, then you're being hypocritical and cannot be taken seriously." We see the same thing pop up in, "You don't like capitalism, yet you still participate in it," and "You don't like cars, yet you still drive places." It's the sort of tired teenager type argument that doesn't seek to advance the discourse. It does nothing to convince anyone of anything and instead it exacerbates division. There's plenty of other better arguments to make and for some reason the author goes for this one.
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  If your concern is with tone, don't you think your concerns are in the wrong place?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Tone? No, my concerns are purely with the rubber-stamped form of the argument. It's as ineffective in this incarnation as it is in its other forms.
    - registeredcorn 4y ago
      Hey, I tried replying yesterday but I hit some kind of posting limit. My bad! I think I had hit reply to the wrong comment. I could have sworn there was something written about tone, but it must have been someone else. Sorry about that.
- belorn 4y ago
  Sweden had an election yesterday, and I can't think of a single political subject where political opponents do not accuse the other side of being insincere. Environment, taxes, law and order, immigration, education, healthcare, elder care... "You say you want X, yet you still say/do/vote Y" would match the intended message in about 95% of every statement being made when a politician is describing an other politician politics. Political debates would be much more interesting if they weren't allowed to do this. It would be a bit like the rule that one should never discuss the speaker, only the content. It would really help against polarization.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    At the very least giving a name to the phenomena (and logical fallacy experts, please chime in) gives people the power to identify and categorize such arguments as not being worthwhile pursuits and can castrate their power.
    - belorn 4y ago
      A more productive way for political discourse would be to analyze the expected result of different political strategies, especially when mirror opposite strategies has the same intended end goal. Of course, when people are pulling and advocating for one direction, doing the opposite seems like an contradiction. Thus the political debates becomes about trust and sincerity. No longer is the discussion about the effectiveness of the strategy but rather about how trustworthy the strategy is. One very common way polls measure political strategies is thus in voter trust. Do voters trust that party X has a good strategy to solve problem Y. It generally only experts and researchers that attempt to measure the actually effectiveness of a political strategy.
zozbot234 4y ago
Well, academic philosophy is a rather sophomoric discipline. The non-sophomoric parts of it have long since moved to other departments - PG even has an essay about this http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Well, academic philosophy is a rather sophomoric discipline. The non-sophomoric parts of it have long since moved to other departments - PG even has an essay about this http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html Why would the opinion of a VC who dropped out of an undergrad philosophy program be an especially authoritative or notable on this topic? Some tech people have an annoying habit of shitting on anything that isn't tech or tech-adjacent, and if anything, that essay seems to play into those biases.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Appeals to Paul Graham are endemic to this website, for reasons lost to the mists of time.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- missingrib 4y ago
  Dismissing academic philosophy as a whole with a link to a PG article is possibly the most HackerNews thing I've ever seen.
rad88 4y ago
He starts with a "Webster's dictionary defines" kind of premise and most of the rest is rhetoric. Not one single "woke social justice warrior" values philosophy? That's not blunt, it's extremely lazy thinking expressed with name calling. I had no idea reading this that the author was nominally an intellectual and a philosopher.
- missingrib 4y ago
  >He starts with a "Webster's dictionary defines" kind of premise We are talking about diversity in academia, so it's helpful to have some history of the word and how it started becoming used the way it's used today. Do you disagree with the history? >Not one single "woke social justice warrior" values philosophy? He didn't say this. He said that not one "woke social justice warrior" (this should have been expressed differently) values philosophical diversity within academia. That said, citing himself on this was a bit ridiculous. >I had no idea reading this that the author was nominally an intellectual and a philosopher. I admit to some bias, but Huemer has some good academic papers (which you can find here: https://www.owl232.net/papers.htm https://www.owl232.net/papers.htm).
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Yes, it's easy to dispute the history he's trying to establish here, because he's fixated on one particular legal aspect of it which happens to support his (much broader) argument.

This tone is very common in academic philosophy. I would characterize it as being low in rhetoric and extremely blunt. I don't really see how it sounds like "a high school sophomore".

kelseyfrog 4y ago

In general the argument template is "If you're not 100% committed to realizing a more extreme version of your mission statement than the status quo, then you're being hypocritical and cannot be taken seriously." We see the same thing pop up in, "You don't like capitalism, yet you still participate in it," and "You don't like cars, yet you still drive places." It's the sort of tired teenager type argument that doesn't seek to advance the discourse. It does nothing to convince anyone of anything and instead it exacerbates division. There's plenty of other better arguments to make and for some reason the author goes for this one.

registeredcorn 4y ago
If your concern is with tone, don't you think your concerns are in the wrong place?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Tone? No, my concerns are purely with the rubber-stamped form of the argument. It's as ineffective in this incarnation as it is in its other forms.
  - registeredcorn 4y ago
    Hey, I tried replying yesterday but I hit some kind of posting limit. My bad! I think I had hit reply to the wrong comment. I could have sworn there was something written about tone, but it must have been someone else. Sorry about that.
belorn 4y ago
Sweden had an election yesterday, and I can't think of a single political subject where political opponents do not accuse the other side of being insincere. Environment, taxes, law and order, immigration, education, healthcare, elder care... "You say you want X, yet you still say/do/vote Y" would match the intended message in about 95% of every statement being made when a politician is describing an other politician politics. Political debates would be much more interesting if they weren't allowed to do this. It would be a bit like the rule that one should never discuss the speaker, only the content. It would really help against polarization.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  At the very least giving a name to the phenomena (and logical fallacy experts, please chime in) gives people the power to identify and categorize such arguments as not being worthwhile pursuits and can castrate their power.
  - belorn 4y ago
    A more productive way for political discourse would be to analyze the expected result of different political strategies, especially when mirror opposite strategies has the same intended end goal. Of course, when people are pulling and advocating for one direction, doing the opposite seems like an contradiction. Thus the political debates becomes about trust and sincerity. No longer is the discussion about the effectiveness of the strategy but rather about how trustworthy the strategy is. One very common way polls measure political strategies is thus in voter trust. Do voters trust that party X has a good strategy to solve problem Y. It generally only experts and researchers that attempt to measure the actually effectiveness of a political strategy.

zozbot234 4y ago

Well, academic philosophy is a rather sophomoric discipline. The non-sophomoric parts of it have long since moved to other departments - PG even has an essay about this http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

tablespoon 4y ago
> Well, academic philosophy is a rather sophomoric discipline. The non-sophomoric parts of it have long since moved to other departments - PG even has an essay about this http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html Why would the opinion of a VC who dropped out of an undergrad philosophy program be an especially authoritative or notable on this topic? Some tech people have an annoying habit of shitting on anything that isn't tech or tech-adjacent, and if anything, that essay seems to play into those biases.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Appeals to Paul Graham are endemic to this website, for reasons lost to the mists of time.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
missingrib 4y ago
Dismissing academic philosophy as a whole with a link to a PG article is possibly the most HackerNews thing I've ever seen.

rad88 4y ago

He starts with a "Webster's dictionary defines" kind of premise and most of the rest is rhetoric. Not one single "woke social justice warrior" values philosophy? That's not blunt, it's extremely lazy thinking expressed with name calling. I had no idea reading this that the author was nominally an intellectual and a philosopher.

missingrib 4y ago
>He starts with a "Webster's dictionary defines" kind of premise We are talking about diversity in academia, so it's helpful to have some history of the word and how it started becoming used the way it's used today. Do you disagree with the history? >Not one single "woke social justice warrior" values philosophy? He didn't say this. He said that not one "woke social justice warrior" (this should have been expressed differently) values philosophical diversity within academia. That said, citing himself on this was a bit ridiculous. >I had no idea reading this that the author was nominally an intellectual and a philosopher. I admit to some bias, but Huemer has some good academic papers (which you can find here: https://www.owl232.net/papers.htm https://www.owl232.net/papers.htm).
- tptacek 4y ago
  Yes, it's easy to dispute the history he's trying to establish here, because he's fixated on one particular legal aspect of it which happens to support his (much broader) argument.