6 ms·

There's a difference between questioning something having taken the time to understand it on its own terms and questioning something because it hasn't gotten ar

There's a difference between questioning something having taken the time to understand it on its own terms and questioning something because it hasn't gotten around to expressing itself in yours.

derleth 14y ago
The only tenet of Smilism is that you don't understand it. Even I don't understand it. (It's very deep.) However, why should you question it just because it hasn't bothered to explain itself to you on your terms? Why should it explain itself to you at all? Who do you think you are all of a sudden?
- koglerjs 14y ago
  You seem to be making two contradictory points that both miss the spirit of what I was saying. Certainly there are fields that are intentionally obfuscated and impenetrable. That doesn't mean the manner in which they are tangled is not outside comprehensibility, as your simple constructed example demonstrates. The spirit of what I was saying is, if lots of people are talking about Smilism, then if you want to have a conversation with those people you will have to examine Smilism on its own turf. No one's saying you have to play with other people, but if you do, you better play nice. On the other hand, people that wish to spread or communicate their ideas are well motivated to translate them into other peoples' terms. So it's not that I'm some VIP, it's that--for instance--Democrats want to explain Obama's health bill in clear but simple terms. Now, with Foucault, there is less motivation to do so. Partly because Philosophy is one of those fields in which thinkers can benefit from obfuscation, and partly because Philosophy is one of those fields that relies on the self-motivation of its students.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Partly because Philosophy is one of those fields in which thinkers can benefit from obfuscation This isn't true in physics. Why is it true in philosophy? Do philosophers see this as a problem? > Philosophy is one of those fields that relies on the self-motivation of its students. So do all fields.
slurgfest 14y ago
Why must I accept Foucault's terms at all? Probability theory does not require me to buy into some closed system of beliefs in order to justify itself. Only certain things like critical theory and some religions seem to require that...
- koglerjs 14y ago
  lesswrong? You've just repeated more or less exactly what you initially said in this thread. This probably indicates that you're not making enough effort to understand why people are saying what they're saying. Yes, it also indicates, perhaps, that people aren't really understanding _you_. But if you find yourself repeating the same button, you're still not doing any additional work in the conversation. Going back to your initial post: >How does one determine whether Foucault's statements are true or not? Thinking about them. Talking about them with others. All of the obvious answers. >At any rate, why should I accept them? You should accept them _conditionally_--i.e., not necessarily incorporate them into your actual beliefs--because if you want to have conversations with the loads of people that take Foucault seriously, _you will have to play nice_. All the dude said was that he really felt Foucault was important. You pretty much just disagree with him, which is, you know, fine; but instead of saying "I find Foucault to be less useful for such-and-such a reason"--a statement I suspect you cannot construct because you actually don't know anything about Foucault--you are pointedly and obviously resisting the idea that Foucault could have any value.

There's a difference between questioning something having taken the time to understand it on its own terms and questioning something because it hasn't gotten around to expressing itself in yours.

derleth 14y ago

The only tenet of Smilism is that you don't understand it. Even I don't understand it. (It's very deep.) However, why should you question it just because it hasn't bothered to explain itself to you on your terms? Why should it explain itself to you at all? Who do you think you are all of a sudden?

koglerjs 14y ago
You seem to be making two contradictory points that both miss the spirit of what I was saying. Certainly there are fields that are intentionally obfuscated and impenetrable. That doesn't mean the manner in which they are tangled is not outside comprehensibility, as your simple constructed example demonstrates. The spirit of what I was saying is, if lots of people are talking about Smilism, then if you want to have a conversation with those people you will have to examine Smilism on its own turf. No one's saying you have to play with other people, but if you do, you better play nice. On the other hand, people that wish to spread or communicate their ideas are well motivated to translate them into other peoples' terms. So it's not that I'm some VIP, it's that--for instance--Democrats want to explain Obama's health bill in clear but simple terms. Now, with Foucault, there is less motivation to do so. Partly because Philosophy is one of those fields in which thinkers can benefit from obfuscation, and partly because Philosophy is one of those fields that relies on the self-motivation of its students.
- derleth 14y ago
  > Partly because Philosophy is one of those fields in which thinkers can benefit from obfuscation This isn't true in physics. Why is it true in philosophy? Do philosophers see this as a problem? > Philosophy is one of those fields that relies on the self-motivation of its students. So do all fields.

slurgfest 14y ago

Why must I accept Foucault's terms at all? Probability theory does not require me to buy into some closed system of beliefs in order to justify itself. Only certain things like critical theory and some religions seem to require that...

koglerjs 14y ago
lesswrong? You've just repeated more or less exactly what you initially said in this thread. This probably indicates that you're not making enough effort to understand why people are saying what they're saying. Yes, it also indicates, perhaps, that people aren't really understanding _you_. But if you find yourself repeating the same button, you're still not doing any additional work in the conversation. Going back to your initial post: >How does one determine whether Foucault's statements are true or not? Thinking about them. Talking about them with others. All of the obvious answers. >At any rate, why should I accept them? You should accept them _conditionally_--i.e., not necessarily incorporate them into your actual beliefs--because if you want to have conversations with the loads of people that take Foucault seriously, _you will have to play nice_. All the dude said was that he really felt Foucault was important. You pretty much just disagree with him, which is, you know, fine; but instead of saying "I find Foucault to be less useful for such-and-such a reason"--a statement I suspect you cannot construct because you actually don't know anything about Foucault--you are pointedly and obviously resisting the idea that Foucault could have any value.