Rationalist taboo
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Rationalist taboo
This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?
Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?
"Who cares, wins"
- Arjen
- Posts: 467
- Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Re: Rationalist taboo
https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?q=the ... DsRv7Utb4J
And does using words with similar meaning actually solve the issue? Or does it have more to do with an attempt to try to understand your conversation partner, or the intent to show an alternate opinion; as if the conversation partner is all wrong for understanding something in a certain way.
~Immanuel Kant
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
No, but I think it might help in some circumstances, maybe in many circumstances. Communicating meaning by way of words is always fraught with problems of misunderstanding. This is just one thing that could help. Sometimes.
"Who cares, wins"
- Arjen
- Posts: 467
- Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Re: Rationalist taboo
Sometimes I try to separate, but typically, the people that understand what I am saying don't need me to use alternate words. So, in that sense, the ones that do, don't see what I am saying after either.
Perhaps we could start a campaign though, because it would help for clarity's sake!
~Immanuel Kant
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Rationalist taboo
Could work.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 18th, 2020, 12:14 pm Rationalist taboo
This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?
Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?
So were you to be asked to define what you mean by objectivity - what, exactly would you say.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 18th, 2020, 12:14 pm Rationalist taboo
This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?
Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?
Yes, for some topics at least. I have tried similar-sounding practices in software design, and they made a positive contribution. As long as people act in good faith, moderate success seems perfectly possible.
I think this takes us to the heart of the matter. The answer to your question is that it's all about context, as it always is. It would depend on the actual topic under discussion. Objectivity is a good example. As we know, it can carry a range of meanings. At any time, in any topic, I might intend any of those meanings. This rationalist taboo would encourage me to say what I mean now, in the topic I am responding to.
There is no point in placing some boilerplate text in my paste buffer, and clicking on paste whenever I would otherwise have written "objective". That would achieve nothing at all. The aim is to promote clarity of thought and writing, I think. So I might refer, in our objectivity topic example, to "correspondence with that which actually is", so that readers know exactly what I mean. In another objectivity topic, I might say "impartial" instead, because that's what I meant at that time, in that topic. We can easily imagine a topic where I might refer to objectivity in several different ways, each expressed clearly to avoid misunderstanding.
I think this idea has merit.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
I see what you mean, but people can only understand us if we express our thoughts in clear and simple words. If we don't say clearly what we mean, won't even the most capable readers fail to understand? I think they will, and I think that's the whole point of this idea.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
Rationalist taboo is a technique which tries to overcome ambiguity and seek clarity in a discussion by restricting your use of language.
It specifies that the participants make one or more of the core terms in a discussion — like "objectivity" — a taboo word that temporarily cannot be said: more precise descriptions are used instead. It is important to note that simply using a synonym does not suffice:
The goal is to encourage speakers to carefully define meaning that might be otherwise disguised by the tabooed word.
For example, it is meaningless to argue about whether or not a particular sentiment is "objective", unless both speakers agree on the exact nature of "objectivity." Making "objectivity" a taboo word encourages speakers to describe the specific meaning intended, rather than arguing over the validity of a vague label.
"Who cares, wins"
- Arjen
- Posts: 467
- Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Re: Rationalist taboo
The down side of not using the term under discussion, but keep describing it, is all thwme typing.
~Immanuel Kant
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
...which is pretty much what this 'rationalist taboo' is suggesting, isn't it?
Yes, that's a problem for many of us, I think.
Well, yes. To write more clearly might sometimes need a little more typing.
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Rationalist taboo
So the difficulty here seems clear.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2020, 8:36 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 18th, 2020, 12:14 pm Rationalist taboo
This is a technique that might allow clearer discussion. On a philosophy forum, where so many discussions are hampered by misunderstood meanings of words, perhaps this might offer a better way to discuss things?
Basically, it just recommends that (for example) in a discussion about objectivity, we agree not to use the word "objectivity", to help us express clearly what we mean. At first it seems daft, but as I think about it in more depth, there is a sort of rightness about it. What do you think?
Yes, for some topics at least. I have tried similar-sounding practices in software design, and they made a positive contribution. As long as people act in good faith, moderate success seems perfectly possible.
I think this takes us to the heart of the matter. The answer to your question is that it's all about context, as it always is. It would depend on the actual topic under discussion. Objectivity is a good example. As we know, it can carry a range of meanings. At any time, in any topic, I might intend any of those meanings. This rationalist taboo would encourage me to say what I mean now, in the topic I am responding to.
There is no point in placing some boilerplate text in my paste buffer, and clicking on paste whenever I would otherwise have written "objective". That would achieve nothing at all. The aim is to promote clarity of thought and writing, I think. So I might refer, in our objectivity topic example, to "correspondence with that which actually is", so that readers know exactly what I mean. In another objectivity topic, I might say "impartial" instead, because that's what I meant at that time, in that topic. We can easily imagine a topic where I might refer to objectivity in several different ways, each expressed clearly to avoid misunderstanding.
I think this idea has merit.
I asked you a simple question, and you used two paragraphs and managed to avoid answering that question.
If objectivity relies on context then its clear enough that objectivity is subjective.
- Arjen
- Posts: 467
- Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Re: Rationalist taboo
I meant 1 time and then just use the word.Pattern-chaser wrote: ...which is pretty much what this 'rationalist taboo' is suggesting, isn't it?
I am lazy!Well, yes. To write more clearly might sometimes need a little more typing.
~Immanuel Kant
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
Not only did I answer your question, pointing out that, in different circumstances, I might mean any of the common meanings that "objective" is used to carry, but I also provided two specific examples. If you want the One and Only Meaning of "objective", I can't give one. The word, as you know, is used to carry several different (but related) meanings.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2020, 1:18 pmSo the difficulty here seems clear.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2020, 8:36 am I think this takes us to the heart of the matter. The answer to your question is that it's all about context, as it always is. It would depend on the actual topic under discussion. Objectivity is a good example. As we know, it can carry a range of meanings. At any time, in any topic, I might intend any of those meanings. This rationalist taboo would encourage me to say what I mean now, in the topic I am responding to.
There is no point in placing some boilerplate text in my paste buffer, and clicking on paste whenever I would otherwise have written "objective". That would achieve nothing at all. The aim is to promote clarity of thought and writing, I think. So I might refer, in our objectivity topic example, to "correspondence with that which actually is", so that readers know exactly what I mean. In another objectivity topic, I might say "impartial" instead, because that's what I meant at that time, in that topic. We can easily imagine a topic where I might refer to objectivity in several different ways, each expressed clearly to avoid misunderstanding.
I think this idea has merit.
I asked you a simple question, and you used two paragraphs and managed to avoid answering that question.
If objectivity relies on context then its clear enough that objectivity is subjective.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rationalist taboo
Yes, I realised that. But what is so Very Bad about being clear, and remaining so throughout your posts?
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Rationalist taboo
I did not ask you want objective was in different circumstances, I asked you what objectivity is.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2020, 9:18 amNot only did I answer your question, pointing out that, in different circumstances, I might mean any of the common meanings that "objective" is used to carry, but I also provided two specific examples. If you want the One and Only Meaning of "objective", I can't give one. The word, as you know, is used to carry several different (but related) meanings.
And the fact that, as I agree, the answer, depends; that means the definition of objectivity is subjective.
This leaves a endless cycle of navel gazing and semantic argumentation about a common word used in philosophy. I think that most words would engender the same problem.
Right now, an observer from another planet would be no clearer as the the meaning of objectivity.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023