Daniel Dennett's Deep Dippities ?

[marjoramblues]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/ma ... ng-extract

1. Use your mistakes
2. Respect your opponent
3. The 'surely' klaxon
4. Answer rhetorical questions
5. Employ Occam's razor
6. Don't waste your time on rubbish
7. Bewared of deepities

What number rings true to you?
I read this article today and...it was no. 2 ( no shit ! )

Why?
Because I think that this forum could do with a smidgeon of it.
And not just to fellow posters/readers, but also to 'philosophy' or even PN articles...

An example:
A recent thread: Philosophy Now 'Is homosexuality 'Bad Faith'? has been locked by Rick.
Rick apologises for the censorship following someone's complaint about 'distressing amount of physical detail'. He then follows this up with his reason for pruning : 'following the general guideline that any threads which would make the casual philosophical visitor go 'Euch - I'm not visiting that forum again!' are a bad thing.

So, what remained of the thread and how philosophically useful/entertaining was it to anyone ?
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10883
Should whoever starts a discussion/responds to a PN article, or any other philosophical topic, at least push out a no. 2 ?

1. Express the position taken
2. List any points of agreement
3. Mention anything you have learned
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

...and about rhetorical questions, have you developed the habit of trying to give it an unobvious answer...'surprise your interlocutor by answering the question'... ( no. 4 of the 4 D's ) ???

I know I have a tendency to gloss over rhetorical questions - so why does Dennett think it important ???

[Skip]

Here is a good habit to develop: whenever you see a rhetorical question, try – silently, to yourself – to give it an unobvious answer. If you find a good one, surprise your interlocutor by answering the question.

Yes. "silently, to yourself" is the key. First, be sure you understand what the author means by the question, and what answer he's either given himself or expects from the reader - and why. Rhetorical questions are often a means of focusing attention on something, or leading thought in a particular direction, of the author's choosing.
Manipulation, in other words - which is the purpose of rhetoric, after all.
Answering such a leading question differently from the author's intention or expectation is one way to nudge a train of thought onto a non-partisan track.

I also very much like the last point. I've been mired in far too many deepities on forums. There always seems to be a nascent philosopher who wants to find profound meaning in his own imperfect grasp on words or concepts.

[marjoramblues]

Ah...this is interesting,Skip. I seem to have silently blanked out what you consider a 'key' phrase from my thought/writing process.

Glossed over...as so many times...time is not taken to read and question even silently; and then...the rhetorical question is not a leading, nudging or challenging question...but just lies there...why ?

What might also be considered 'key' is the follow-up: 'If you find a good one...'
I seem to recall a few instances where someone followed up a rhetorical Q - only for it to be summarily dismissed. On the other hand, there 'surely' have been times when the person posing the Q has been disappointed by the lack of take-up. ( even a 'bad' one would be good ? )

Dennet's use of 'deepity':
A deepity (a term coined by the daughter of my late friend, computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum) is a proposition that seems both important and true – and profound – but that achieves this effect by being ambiguous.
Here is an example (better sit down: this is heavy stuff): Love is just a word...
...Whoever said that love is just a word meant something else, surely. No doubt, but they didn't say it

True to his word, he spells out the meaning of 'deepity'; there is no amibiguity...or is there? Another example offered:
...a fine deepity by Rowan Williams, the then archbishop of Canterbury, who described his faith as "a silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark''.

Isn't the RW quote simply a piece of creative writing ?

And about being 'mired in far too many deepities on forums' ... there being 'a nascent philosopher who wants to find profound meaning in his own imperfect grasp on words or concepts' - do you have an example in mind, eg on the PN forum ?

[Skip]

And about being 'mired in far too many deepities on forums' ... there being 'a nascent philosopher who wants to find profound meaning in his own imperfect grasp on words or concepts' - do you have an example in mind, eg on the PN forum ?

No, since i haven't been here very often lately, and can't recall the last discussion in which i participated. Besides, i wouldn't hold anyone up to ridicule before their peers... and especially not a fledgling! Young people are insufficiently trained in language and abstract thought in school, so i believe they should be encouraged to explore these things in a [relatively!] safe environment.
One subject that accrues deepities as a trawler collects zebra mussels is the question of evil. Others are the nature of wisdom and altruism, but the most encrusted are Love and Truth.

Isn't the RW quote simply a piece of creative writing ?

That, and a tautology. "I don't ask; He don't tell." That's pretty much what faith is.

Anyway, i liked this article. Thanks.

[marjoramblues]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/books ... wanted=all

Glad you liked the Guardian article - some piece of book promotion. Guess that's what he will be doing at the (also advertised) 'Bristol Festival of Ideas' on the 28th May.

Interesting to look at the book from another perspective; see the New York Times article, linked above, entitled 'Philosophy that stirs the waters'...

[marjoramblues]

<<That, and a tautology. "I don't ask; He don't tell." That's pretty much what faith is>>

And most of your trawl is discussed under 'religion' - whether of faith or philosophy...
Muscles for mire.

[Kuznetzova]

An example:
A recent thread: Philosophy Now 'Is homosexuality 'Bad Faith'? has been locked by Rick.
Rick apologises for the censorship following someone's complaint about 'distressing amount of physical detail'. He then follows this up with his reason for pruning : 'following the general guideline that any threads which would make the casual philosophical visitor go 'Euch - I'm not visiting that forum again!' are a bad thing.

I'm saddened to hear that this forum is currently under the modus operandi of appealing to mainstream values and sensibilities.

[marjoramblues]

An example:
A recent thread: Philosophy Now 'Is homosexuality 'Bad Faith'? has been locked by Rick.
Rick apologises for the censorship following someone's complaint about 'distressing amount of physical detail'. He then follows this up with his reason for pruning : 'following the general guideline that any threads which would make the casual philosophical visitor go 'Euch - I'm not visiting that forum again!' are a bad thing.

I'm saddened to hear that this forum is currently under the modus operandi of appealing to mainstream values and sensibilities.

On a scale of 0-10, with 10 being gushing tears and a gnashing of teeth, just how sad are you?

Given the usually high tolerance level, the offence(s) against sensibilities must have been pretty dire. Why, then, the apology?

The annoying thing about deleted posts is that we never get to see them...unless we happen to be around at moment of posting,
and...
can anyone tell me...are you informed by the Grand Deletor of any potentially offensive posts made in response to your thoughts...
Because I would want to know...

Then again, perhaps it would be best to follow Dennett's no.6:

Don't waste your time on rubbish.

[Kuznetzova]

Your english is very fancy, marjoramblues. It is frollicky and flies off the tongue like good magazine articles.

That's fine and everything, but just for clarity:

Are you denying that this forum is moderated and that moderators have not locked and deleted threads here?
Are you denying that the moderators have actually deleted people's accounts here?

Lastly, are you demanding that I produce evidence of this, lest you not believe?

[AMod]

I'm saddened to hear that this forum is currently under the modus operandi of appealing to mainstream values and sensibilities.

Kuznetzova,

Thats just the Admin.

As a mod I pretty much hold to my old signature(when we allowed them).

"Let it not be said that this is not a benevolent tyranny".

AMod.

[marjoramblues]

Your english is very fancy, marjoramblues. It is frollicky and flies off the tongue like good magazine articles.

That's fine and everything, but just for clarity:

Are you denying that this forum is moderated and that moderators have not locked and deleted threads here?
Are you denying that the moderators have actually deleted people's accounts here?

Lastly, are you demanding that I produce evidence of this, lest you not believe?

yes... Yes.... YES !!
...was that good for you ?