Submitted by philosophybreak t3_zkr99s in philosophy
Reply to comment by elmo85 in Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak
>but he's talking about philosophy, which is inherently general,
Philosophy needs to be precise aswell, and it absolutely must relate to actual events the real world (such as engineering, art, socializing, etc), or else it is not useful at all (maybe still interesting, though). The author involves real-world specific context in his article plenty.
It's not good form to make an extremely broad and general statement in philosophy unless you can back it up by elaborating. Maybe he elaborates in his book, but in this article, he denounces "seriousness" - an incredibly broad and frequent feeling in humans - without being precise enough for it to be meaningful.
> btw the most exciting products of engineering are always the ones which are attempting to break paradigms.
I completely agree, and I firmly believe most of those engineers take their jobs seriously. Even as they break boundaries.
I think there are some explanations of seriousness dropped here and there in the article, and it is not exactly what you mean. it is rather used for following rules without questioning, respecting discipline to the detriment of creativity.
this means someone can be serious in their work (in your terms) without following the seriousness of the subject (in the author's term).
he suggests playfulness for example to break well known dichotomies, or an other example to adopt foreign ideas instead of translating everything to familiar terms.
at least this is my recollection.
That's not the meaning of 'seriousness' in English, though. That's my point. This author is using 'seriousness' as a stand-in for being committed to rules or being closedminded. Just refer to the thing itself or make a new word rather than defining a word that already has a different, relevant definition.
Literally, that's not a definition of seriousness. Defining seriousness such that serious things and people are always closed-minded really seems like a bad idea. Seems very closed-minded in itself.
I think you are too serious about the meaning of that word.
Similar response to someone else:
Yes, language changes naturally over time. If it is an intentional change on his part, I think it's a bad change.
What do we call our old version of "seriousness" now? Why change it, why lose it? Why tie up "closedmindedness", which we have a word for, with a related but totally distinct thing?
He's conflating two different things and using then using one of those two things to denounce the other. I do not abide that in an essay about openmindedness. He absolutely didn't have to choose a specific, different word.
Someone is downvoting you for simply asking why the author of the article needlessly tortures the meaning of a word. This sub is too serious... lol
Language is fluid and changes constantly. All of human history can tell you that. Why is this specific situation so different?
Yes, language changes naturally over time. If it is an intentional change on his part, I think it's a bad change.
What do we call our old version of "seriousness" now? Why change it, why lose it? Why tie up "closedmindedness", which we have a word for, with a related but totally distinct thing?
He's conflating two different things and using then using one of those two things to denounce the other. I do not abide that in an essay about openmindedness.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments