3 ms·
You seem to have Chesterton’s fence completely backwards. Chesterton’s fence can never be an argument against creating something new. The whole point of it is
by addicted 2y ago
You seem to have Chesterton’s fence completely backwards.
Chesterton’s fence can never be an argument against creating something new.
The whole point of it is that if you come across a fence then that was the result of a conscious human decision and subsequent effort, which strongly implies there was a reason it was created, and until you understand what that reason was, you’re taking a risk by destroying the fence.
But if there is “nothing” and you’re creating something new, Chesterton’s fence doesn’t apply because the lack of existence of anything was not the result of intentional human design and effort, therefore there’s no evidence that the lack of existence of something “had a reason for it”.
- tptacek 2y agoRead The Drift From Domesticity, where this whole "fence" thing comes from. It's an appeal to (small-c) conservatism, to respect and understand traditions and norms. It is not a logical rule about it being improper to alter absolutely anything without a clear understanding of its origins. You can disagree with me about its applicability to the newest cabinet branch, but our disagreement isn't rooted in me not knowing the metaphor.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoThere is no creation without destruction, so yes Chesterton's fence almost certainly applies to an act of creation. In other words, there is no "nothing". We will always be playing in a sandbox someone else played in before us.