3 ms·

I'm confused about your point - you seem to be arguing against yourself here. Yes, there are huge swaths of knowledge that by certain, subjective metrics won't

by TrevorJ 17y ago

I'm confused about your point - you seem to be arguing against yourself here. Yes, there are huge swaths of knowledge that by certain, subjective metrics won't be useful to certain people, but the same could be said about a lot of things. I don't need to know the same stuff that an architect needs to know for example. I guess the basic fallacy I take issue with is that people are now measuring the value of a person based on the relevance of the knowledge that person has, and I feel that our value as people goes far beyond that.

jerf 17y ago
You're being emotionally fuzzy, because you are refusing to make value judgments, a grave cognitive hazard of the current postmodern philosophical regime. I say instead that there's more than one relevant definition of "value". Are old people less "valuable" because we have no use for their wisdom? It does not diminish their dignity and "final worth" as human beings, but yes, there are useful and valid definitions by which their value is less. They are not all the value definitions, but the set is not empty. Jamming a single-dimensional definition of value on top of my posts will definitely make them look incoherent; that certainly doesn't surprise me much. Your way of thinking leaves you unable to understand why the 50-year-old in the article feels the way he does. Of course he's valuable, right, and you should tell him to buck up, right? Well, it's true that he's still valuable, but it is also true that he has identified a real problem that you can't solve by just telling him he's valuable. I don't know what the exact solution for this person is, but it's more than just trying to load up on empty self-esteem. Emotionally fuzzy thinking is a great social signal ("man, shouldn't we just love everybody?"), but it's a terrible way to solve problems like this guy's; indeed, take this tack and you'll just further alienate him. There's a real problem here.
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  I would argue that the problem with broad generalizations and fuzzy definitions comes not from me, but from the article in question. The logical fallacy in the article is that he seems to be equating perceived value in the modern workforce with human worth as a whole. I agree absolutely with what you are saying: there are different definitions of value depending on the arena in question. The issue is that we seem to be taking one area (technology) and equating it with all others, which as you say, isn't useful or valid. I've enjoyed our discussions :)

by TrevorJ 17y ago

jerf 17y ago

You're being emotionally fuzzy, because you are refusing to make value judgments, a grave cognitive hazard of the current postmodern philosophical regime. I say instead that there's more than one relevant definition of "value". Are old people less "valuable" because we have no use for their wisdom? It does not diminish their dignity and "final worth" as human beings, but yes, there are useful and valid definitions by which their value is less. They are not all the value definitions, but the set is not empty. Jamming a single-dimensional definition of value on top of my posts will definitely make them look incoherent; that certainly doesn't surprise me much. Your way of thinking leaves you unable to understand why the 50-year-old in the article feels the way he does. Of course he's valuable, right, and you should tell him to buck up, right? Well, it's true that he's still valuable, but it is also true that he has identified a real problem that you can't solve by just telling him he's valuable. I don't know what the exact solution for this person is, but it's more than just trying to load up on empty self-esteem. Emotionally fuzzy thinking is a great social signal ("man, shouldn't we just love everybody?"), but it's a terrible way to solve problems like this guy's; indeed, take this tack and you'll just further alienate him. There's a real problem here.

TrevorJ 17y ago
I would argue that the problem with broad generalizations and fuzzy definitions comes not from me, but from the article in question. The logical fallacy in the article is that he seems to be equating perceived value in the modern workforce with human worth as a whole. I agree absolutely with what you are saying: there are different definitions of value depending on the arena in question. The issue is that we seem to be taking one area (technology) and equating it with all others, which as you say, isn't useful or valid. I've enjoyed our discussions :)