The problem with denouncing generalizations, slapstick irony aside, is that it misses Hegel’s terrific observation that all theory is a kind of generalization.
And I would claim we desperately need theory in this here Information Age when there are so many ways to mislead and misinform the masses based theories that work: poisoning the well, behavioral psychology, scaling effects, pop culture, agenda setting, NLP, captured alignment, fiat incentives …sheet.
I'm not denouncing ALL generalizations only the lazy ones I’m seeing trotted out in response to current events.
If precision is the accepted opposite of lazy, the burden of defining it rests with the accuser, ja?
Without a precise definition of bad theory, the accuser may well be accused of censorship, ja?
the meaning of what I wrote is clear — you are free to disagree with it, but endless semantic pedantry isn’t moving the needle for me.
Sure if you are sure you know what you mean then you’re golden. Why even speak though if you don’t need to define your terms to others?
maybe I should try to define every word in the English language from first principles, fail, find the language wanting and never speak again?
or else bare no responsibility for your attempts to communicate in the medium of language?--meaning is always a negotiation of the middle ground between intention and reception so my attempt to hold you accountable for the fraying of your ideas is balanced by your hesitation to waste time in the labyrinth of semantics ... and so here we are two strangers in a strange landscape
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed