4 ms·

Imperfect Parfit

17 points by diodorus 2y ago

dang 2y ago
Related: Nothing Personal: How ideas made Derek Parfit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494017 - Dec 2023 (26 comments) Derek Parfit: The Perfectionist at All Souls - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35688300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35688300 - April 2023 (21 comments) How to Be Good: The Philosopher Derek Parfit (2011) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22037240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22037240 - Jan 2020 (6 comments) Why anything? Why this? (1998) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13315746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13315746 - Jan 2017 (77 comments) Derek Parfit has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13304873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13304873 - Jan 2017 (38 comments) How to Be Good: Derek Parfit's Moral Philosophy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273495 - March 2016 (16 comments)
calf 2y ago
The problem with this argument is that two professors are using a PMC-type of argument about "self-regulation" theory—a pop-psych fad since the 2010's—to psychologize a peer whose behavior is more simply explained as being a creation of the philosophical-industrial complex. In trying to warn prospective readers about Parfit's books/legacy, this essay inadvertently tells on itself, it is casting judgment instead of reflecting on the madnesses of philosophy itself. It would save lay people a lot more time if they just said what was wrong with Parfit's works, rather than this thinly-veiled biographical ad hominem exercise.
- skrebbel 2y ago
  > the philosophical-industrial complex what's this?
  - calf 2y ago
    It's in the article.
    - skrebbel 2y ago
      Hardly.
      - calf 2y ago
        How obnoxious and rude. It was in the article, it's a nice clever analogy that the authors used, it's an allusion that's not that deep or complicated to get. If you finished high-school English and/or did well on the SAT you should have the reading comprehension skills to infer the meaning from that passage, despite it being a term not defined anywhere. Furthermore, you are free to disagree/skeptical with their notion of a "philosophy-industrial complex" being true or valid, but that issue would be a different matter and does not warrant your passive-aggressiveness toward me.
card_zero 2y ago
> A common idea seems to be that the weirder one’s way of thinking, the more likely one is to get things right, for the truth could not possibly be publicly available. [...] This is to get things exactly the wrong way around. So, this common idea, about common ideas being probably wrong, is wrong? I mean, sometimes there's crowd wisdom, and then again sometimes there's popular misconceptions. Outliers are sometimes merely errors, but experts who think they know things others mostly don't know are often right. It's not exactly the wrong way around. "Surprisingly popular" is a neat technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprisingly_popular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprisingly_popular Though I'm afraid this will select for conspiracy theorists and cranks along with experts.

17 points by diodorus 2y ago

dang 2y ago

Related: Nothing Personal: How ideas made Derek Parfit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494017 - Dec 2023 (26 comments) Derek Parfit: The Perfectionist at All Souls - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35688300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35688300 - April 2023 (21 comments) How to Be Good: The Philosopher Derek Parfit (2011) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22037240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22037240 - Jan 2020 (6 comments) Why anything? Why this? (1998) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13315746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13315746 - Jan 2017 (77 comments) Derek Parfit has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13304873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13304873 - Jan 2017 (38 comments) How to Be Good: Derek Parfit's Moral Philosophy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11273495 - March 2016 (16 comments)

calf 2y ago

The problem with this argument is that two professors are using a PMC-type of argument about "self-regulation" theory—a pop-psych fad since the 2010's—to psychologize a peer whose behavior is more simply explained as being a creation of the philosophical-industrial complex. In trying to warn prospective readers about Parfit's books/legacy, this essay inadvertently tells on itself, it is casting judgment instead of reflecting on the madnesses of philosophy itself. It would save lay people a lot more time if they just said what was wrong with Parfit's works, rather than this thinly-veiled biographical ad hominem exercise.

skrebbel 2y ago
> the philosophical-industrial complex what's this?
- calf 2y ago
  It's in the article.
  - skrebbel 2y ago
    Hardly.
    - calf 2y ago
      How obnoxious and rude. It was in the article, it's a nice clever analogy that the authors used, it's an allusion that's not that deep or complicated to get. If you finished high-school English and/or did well on the SAT you should have the reading comprehension skills to infer the meaning from that passage, despite it being a term not defined anywhere. Furthermore, you are free to disagree/skeptical with their notion of a "philosophy-industrial complex" being true or valid, but that issue would be a different matter and does not warrant your passive-aggressiveness toward me.

card_zero 2y ago

> A common idea seems to be that the weirder one’s way of thinking, the more likely one is to get things right, for the truth could not possibly be publicly available. [...] This is to get things exactly the wrong way around. So, this common idea, about common ideas being probably wrong, is wrong? I mean, sometimes there's crowd wisdom, and then again sometimes there's popular misconceptions. Outliers are sometimes merely errors, but experts who think they know things others mostly don't know are often right. It's not exactly the wrong way around. "Surprisingly popular" is a neat technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprisingly_popular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprisingly_popular Though I'm afraid this will select for conspiracy theorists and cranks along with experts.