Your two things are nouns, not propositional beliefs, at all. "IP" isn't partly normative - it's totally normative, and ineradicably politcal. While your choice of Ubuntu isn't normative (it's about what you choose and want to use, rather than what you choose or want others to), it isn't a statement either.
So, do you want to revise the meme requirements to match what appears to be really interesting in this vein - or do we stick with the rules as laid out?
"So, do you want to revise the meme requirements to match what appears to be really interesting in this vein"
I am not 100% sure what you're going for but ...I am hoping that if there's an interesting variant close by in meme-space that that is the one that gets posted to your journal not mine :) I'm going for maximum dispersal and impact.
It's definitely a worthy exercise to prompt people to think carefully about //how// they come to the conclusions they do, and about what parts of those arguments are essential and necessary to them. Because they often don't. I believe the scientific method calls this falsifiability, no? It's as important to know that you HAVE assumptions that lead to your conclusions as it is to know which ones are indispensible to them. There's a lot to say about it.
The difference between normative desires and declarative beliefs is an important part of this, because the weakest places in arguments leading to affirmations of declarative conclusions probably occurs when arguments magically and subtly cross the lines between these two categories. If, in tracing the logic from a declarative belief backwards by asking "why do I belief this", you find yourself talking about something you //want// instead of something that's proabably true, that's probably a pretty weak point in the argument.
This is why I'm not a big fan of moral language: it tends to deliberately turn imperatives - "Do this, this way." - into allegedly empirical observations that have truth values: "//You should// do this, this way." It ends up obscuring the imperative, allowing it to escape from accountability and scrutiny entirely, while still allowing it to come into full force as an authoritative command. Meanwhile, the declarative form allows it to be shoehorned into logical arguments that are otherwise exclusively about facts and truths.
The way I see it, you don't avoid accountability just because it's the other person who's resonsible for execution of a statement.
It only avoids accountability if you don't take responsibilty for that other person, and their wellbeing to the extent your words carry meaning and are capable of affecting them.
It's just important to preserve agency and respect freedom which is part of the basis of any friendly relationship.
Not only that but "vocally airing" them is a good way to flush out bullshit assumptions. And sure, if the assumptions that are possible to make visible are wiped out...I could still believe what I do. But I would have to on some level acknowledge that I was being irrational
( ... )
You motherfucker. You really know how to pick 'em.
You've also answered my question regarding the normative/declarative "things" to ask about, because the normative question is WAY more relevant and provocative than my choice in programming languages.
...Wait a minute. Did I just say "choice"? Doesn't that make the second item also normative? *ahem*. "Better" is used in a more pragmatic, but still normative sense, here. Whether one tool is "better" for a job than anotehr depends mostly upon what job you're doing. Guess what? That's a motive - a desire. Not an observation.
So it sounds like you should jsut stick to normative things, but not only do they seem to be more interesting things to discuss - but you can't even stick to non-normatives when you try! ;p
"Irrational" says more about the speaker than it does about the subject. It doesn't say "the subject's reasoning doesn't make sense." It says "I don't understand the subject's reasoning." It also says "I want to insult the subject for thinking in a consistent way I haven't understood yet."
It's still possible to be perfectly rational when your non-normative assumptions turn out false; that's what normative assumptions //are for//. You just end up realizing that the normative assumptions - //your values// - were really running the show all along. And that's no reason to give them up.
PS - my responses are in development. hold on tight.
I am. So, pick two things you believe I believe. If I don't actually believe them, do you get to pick another one as a substitute? Or, pick to things you think I like, or want, or do, or support, or oppose. Or one of each!
So, do you want to revise the meme requirements to match what appears to be really interesting in this vein - or do we stick with the rules as laid out?
Reply
I am not 100% sure what you're going for but ...I am hoping that if there's an interesting variant close by in meme-space that that is the one that gets posted to your journal not mine :) I'm going for maximum dispersal and impact.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
It only avoids accountability if you don't take responsibilty for that other person, and their wellbeing to the extent your words carry meaning and are capable of affecting them.
It's just important to preserve agency and respect freedom which is part of the basis of any friendly relationship.
Reply
Reply
You motherfucker. You really know how to pick 'em.
You've also answered my question regarding the normative/declarative "things" to ask about, because the normative question is WAY more relevant and provocative than my choice in programming languages.
...Wait a minute. Did I just say "choice"? Doesn't that make the second item also normative? *ahem*. "Better" is used in a more pragmatic, but still normative sense, here. Whether one tool is "better" for a job than anotehr depends mostly upon what job you're doing. Guess what? That's a motive - a desire. Not an observation.
So it sounds like you should jsut stick to normative things, but not only do they seem to be more interesting things to discuss - but you can't even stick to non-normatives when you try! ;p
Reply
It's still possible to be perfectly rational when your non-normative assumptions turn out false; that's what normative assumptions //are for//. You just end up realizing that the normative assumptions - //your values// - were really running the show all along. And that's no reason to give them up.
PS - my responses are in development. hold on tight.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment