Submitted by DirtyOldPanties t3_zpnw8f in philosophy
Comments
hellosweetpanda t1_j0wei6p wrote
Exactly. I’m in customer service and have gotten things so wrong by just doing what the customer asked for without clarification. AND assuming they know and understand the words / jargon they are using.
tomowudi t1_j0wowp4 wrote
The article doesn't unpack this, but I would almost have to ASSUME that the context is about your own ideas, not when examining the ideas of others. Even though the instruction is to "take it literally," my HOPE would be that taking it literally wouldn't be broadly applicable to your actual understanding of someone else's idea, but rather as a process whereby you visualize what the literal expression of that might look like in order to critically think about it.
​
But honestly, its hilarious and ironic to me that the most coherent interpretation of this piece interpreting Rand's intent requires that you do NOT take it literally. LMAO.
Pawn_of_the_Void t1_j0xdjcn wrote
Oh. That would make a hell of a lot more sense, although the way it sounds is weird for addressing yourself (specifically the nobody could really mean that part). But right context would suggest it is meant to be internal, or at least the blog writer is suggesting using it on oneself.
In that sense it does make sense to explore what the things you think about your own beliefs really do mean. Feel a bit silly now haha
tomowudi t1_j0zt4t6 wrote
No need to feel silly - who can really say if this interpretation of it is correct beside the writer themself?
​
I think your interpretation is valid - just because mine might make more sense, it isn't really the common one if you look through this thread, and so it may be that the writer really did have that baffling take. *shrugs*
InspectorG-007 t1_j0wvrxe wrote
I think I can sum it up: walk the talk.
Does this make me some kind of Minimalist Philosopher?
iiioiia t1_j0y8npu wrote
> Instantly taking things literally
When you say "instantly", do you mean instantly? Because that word wasn't in the article. Also, the advice was "take ideas
Perhaps if an article isn't exhaustively comprehensive in wording, presuming the worst interpretation of the words is also not optimal.
>>> Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean.
My reading of it was ~"don't be generous and assume that bad sounding ideas aren't actually intended other than they are stated', which based on my observations of the ambiguous manner in which people speak, is sound advice.
> What really matters is the idea someone is trying to convey and sometimes people are not great at that which requires work on the receiving end
Well you've given a fine demonstration here of ensuring that your understanding is perfect before passing judgment.
bildramer t1_j0udbkq wrote
>What really matters is the idea someone is trying to convey and sometimes people are not great at that which requires work on the receiving end
That's what she's saying. You'd know that if you actually did it.
Pawn_of_the_Void t1_j0uevzq wrote
No it isn't. She said to take it literally. Not to assume that no one could possibly mean that. Which, to be fair, one shouldn't just assume but double check perhaps but that was not the suggestion made.
iiioiia t1_j0y8rov wrote
> Which, to be fair, one shouldn't just assume but double check
And if one does not have access to the author to double check, what is then optimal behavior?
FindorKotor93 t1_j0u4a7k wrote
Yeah this is narcissism, thinking that the meanings you give to words are more important to what someone is saying than the context and intent. It leads to linguistic tyranny where you hold others ideas to your concept of words rather than accepting words can have multiple definitions.
EDIT: Can only people who have read the article and are willing to defend it's words in good faith comment. I don't like wasting my time, even if they are indirectly evidencing my point on this mindset.
bildramer t1_j0ud960 wrote
What she means is that when you say something like "narcissism leads to linguistic tyranny", you should actually make sure you know what that means, and that that means anything at all, not just let vibes do the work for you.
FindorKotor93 t1_j0udh1a wrote
Ironic considering what she said is that when you read someone say something, you should have a strong definition of words in your head and not conclude "Oh they can't possibly mean that."So either she's a hypocrite or you're a liar.
Edit: "Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean."
coolcatthemusical t1_j0wmapt wrote
how are we even discussing rand on this sub and how are people arguing with you about this
bildramer t1_j0uesx9 wrote
I mean, judging by what you said, context and intent (or what you assume is the intent) is more important to you than the straightforward meaning. What did you think Ayn Rand said? "We should use dictionaries" but in more words? No, the important thing she says is that we should live by ideas we accept as true, that we should uphold values we claim to defend. You don't need to impose your meaning on others, but there needs to be a meaning you take seriously.
[deleted] t1_j0uf5ix wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0vtgx3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wqkbl wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wvrg4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0y9f2o wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j10auv8 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
iiioiia t1_j0y99ju wrote
> Ironic considering what she said is that when you read someone say something, you should have a strong definition of words in your head and not conclude "Oh they can't possibly mean that."So either she's a hypocrite or you're a liar.
a) Can you quote the text where she said precisely this?
b) That's a lovely false dichotomy, but I think you may have missed at east one other possibility: you've misinterpreted the message.
FindorKotor93 t1_j0z2qga wrote
A) I literally did right under: Thank you for proving me right by not interacting with the quote or second guessing yourself because your own interpretation of what I said was more important than context.
b) Nope. If I have to reinterpret beyond the literal meaning of her words, she's a hypocrite. If she wants me to take her words at face value, Bil's a liar. Do you have an alternate explanation or are you witnessing the NPD driven desire to shit on inconvenient truths even if you can't think of a counter explanation.
[deleted] t1_j0zm6jg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j102g4w wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j109sba wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j102v0i wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j109skk wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Sitheral t1_j0vonxn wrote
There is one problem with that - people always pick up vibes, meaning? Yeah, sometimes, when the planets are in right place, I would say about an hour or two a day, if there are no distractions around.
DarkSkyKnight t1_j0v4ul9 wrote
Narcissism is really being overused these days 🙄
FindorKotor93 t1_j0vb0sz wrote
Ironic you'd say that whilst demonstrating your ego to the point you refuse to engage with my words only tyrannise them...
iiioiia t1_j0y90t3 wrote
> Yeah this is narcissism, thinking that the meanings you give to words are more important to what someone is saying than the context and intent.
This is ironic.
FindorKotor93 t1_j0z2c1q wrote
Nope. It's holding her to her own standards. Thank you for proving my point.
iiioiia t1_j0zmfnb wrote
> thinking that the meanings you give to words are more important to what someone is saying than the context and intent.
You are taking your interpretation as being necessarily correct, ignoring your very own advice: considering "the context and intent".
FindorKotor93 t1_j1006pl wrote
No. I'm considering context and intent. You are the ones who want to run from the words, their context and her intent to what you feel from them. As witnessed by your continual refusal to engage her words.
iiioiia t1_j101v3z wrote
> I'm considering context and intent.
By what means did you acquire necessarily accurate knowledge (as opposed to belief) about intent? Have you spoken with the author of this piece?
> You are the ones who want to run from the words, their context and her intent to what you feel from them.
I am here engaging in conversation with you, and speaking as truthfully as I can.
I am not running from anything.
[deleted] t1_j0u66hh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wboc0 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j0xyv7o wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j0uf2zc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0uu3sx wrote
[removed]
codefreespirit t1_j0v3yfy wrote
Funny that the point of the article and all the discussion goes right through a filter no matter what. The biggest problem with any objectivist philosophy is there is no objective viewpoint to actually view it from. So unfortunately her own argument is hard to take seriously, and while I agree that the hard work part is the point, a lot of that is going to get lost by how it’s presented.
iiioiia t1_j0y8yi3 wrote
> a lot of that is going to get lost by how it’s presented
Don't overlook errors that occur when text is ingested and interpreted, much/most of which is done subconsciously and sub-perceptually.
I think it would be fun to run people here through some quotes from articles, but keep the identity/affiliation of the author secret. I wonder if people here would have identical(!) reactions to the same articles if they didn't know it was associated with Rand.
Noobperson21 t1_j0xmlew wrote
Exactly. So many people are on here arguing about her viewpoints because our perception is filtered. I would say that if we absolutely have to look at our views, it would be adequate only through every filter to come close to objectivity.
bildramer t1_j0uh8sy wrote
What Ayn Rand is saying is: if you say we should care about animals, you should care about animals. You should actually notice if you're eating meat. You should actually check if your pet that appears to be happy is actually happy. You should ask questions about wild animal suffering. You shouldn't be having discussions about caring about animals only when it happens to come up, which is when you and your buddies happen to talk about it, or on online forums, or when you choose to buy the more expensive "organic" option because it's probably better, or whatever, and the rest of the time live a life completely orthogonal to that, as if they're just words you emit to play a game instead of true, meaningful statements. If you say "nobody can be certain of anything", you shouldn't be certain of anything. If you say "we need to be more compassionate", you should be more compassionate. If you say "we should teach critical thinking in schools", maybe you should actually try to get that to happen, and that involves knowing if it already happens, and why it is failing or succeeding, and to what degree.
What Ayn Rand isn't saying is any sort of linguistic gotcha, or something like that. Why did so many commenters go that route? Jesus. "No, you misinterpreted her, when the whole point of what she said is you shouldn't do that but take her at face value. Unlike you, whose interpretation is a misinterpretation, my interpretation is taking her at face value." Very funny, in a sort of meta way, but no.
FindorKotor93 t1_j0w99it wrote
Thank you for witnessing she's wrong by doing the opposite of what she said to do with others words to hers: "Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean."
AllegoryKory t1_j0w0hex wrote
this is what I was looking for, thank you
Clementea t1_j0tzh0i wrote
>"attach clear, specific meanings to words,” identifying what the words refer to in reality: Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean.
What? I stop reading after this. It's basically saying sarcasm does not exist?...
>!And as someone with OCD I personally say this feels harmful. Sometimes people take words too literally when it wasn't even mean as such and it gives them negative impact. And OCD and GAD gives their sufferer a lot of harmful and false ideas!<
DirtyOldPanties OP t1_j0uh5gy wrote
I don't think the author means to say sarcasm doesn't exist; but rather that philosophy isn't presented as sarcastic.
Clementea t1_j0v3bzh wrote
That would contradict itself then since taking it as what it said literally mean sarcasm doesn't exist. As everything is as what it looks like it says without hidden meaning.
Sarcasm literally means you say something but you mean exactly the opposite. If you take it straight for what it does say and means, meaning there is no sarcasm.
>!And once again this is quite harmful for someone who have to live with severe intrusive thought. My anxiety got triggered from reading this.!<
[deleted] t1_j0y9llw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ybotg wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j10ahs0 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
bildramer t1_j0uctxh wrote
Nothing to do with sarcasm. It means that if you claim to believe something, or if you think someone else believes something, you should start by acting as if it's actually true. Like when people hear "abortion is murder" and somehow end up parsing that as "I hate women" - don't do that. Or when people claim to think "abortion is murder" and yet don't act like millions of children are being murdered, but act as if it's a minor inconvenience to be settled with ballots.
As the title said: take ideas seriously. Don't use them as attire or status markers, to identify which political group you're in, or for fun philosophical discussions you ignore in real life. Did you know 2/3rds of self-described vegetarians claim to have eaten meat in the last 24 hours?
RanCestor t1_j0u1r0h wrote
Define "God."
GiftFromRNGesus t1_j0xcsvz wrote
While the baggage of the author is probably not to be discounted (“there are no philosophies, only philosophers”), I do like the idea of attempting to live your life authentically according to your philosophical belief set. The idea that; if your philosophy is crap and leads to negative outcomes that affect you, the people around you and the world at large… you’ll probably need to change your philosophy (or live and die looking like an idiot). The way she attempts to go about it (by potentially narcissistically reinterpreting the world based on her own viewpoints and then affirming or disavowing viewpoints based on that) might be problematic… but at least it’s authentic. Then others, who might be living their lives authentically as well; can call her out on her bullshit… leading to a philosophical debate where hopefully the best interpretation wins out. Nietzsche said something similar about wishing philosophers would act according to their beliefs and not just paying them lip service (with the intent that if people realised their ideas were crap by experiencing the consequences of them… they’d stop spouting crap ideas). So I guess it depends on what you like, living authentically and risk putting people out/causing arguments; or internalising potentially problematic beliefs without realising their consequences… bit of a choose your own adventure if you ask me.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j0vlbvr wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j0xsxll wrote
[removed]
Pawn_of_the_Void t1_j0u8sd9 wrote
What a baffling take. When on the receiving end of communication you want to figure out what someone means. Sometimes this means considering if someone could really mean something and then clarifying it with them to be sure. Instantly taking things literally only works with some people and even then they might have a different conception of what a word means. What really matters is the idea someone is trying to convey and sometimes people are not great at that which requires work on the receiving end