> The world is too interesting and too nuanced to waste time trying to decipher a worldview obscured with wordplay.
Ah, yes, classic self defense when one feels threatened. Interesting that you use wordplay to criticize wordplay. I've done it too. Everyone has. But it isn't really getting us anywhere. It is a good way to protect one's ego though.
I'm sorry you don't understand it. I'm sorry if you perceived my quip as an insult. I was trying to make the point that if you ask overly simplistic questions and demand overly simplistic answers you aren't going to learn very much. If you take that personally then I'm sorry. My intent is for more people here to broaden their perspective. I see very strong signals have people been anchored in computer science but not philosophy or ethics or history. I see common tendencies for people to dig in. It is easier to defend oneself than to learn.
>My intent is for more people here to broaden their perspective. I see very strong signals have people been anchored in computer science but not philosophy or ethics or history. I see common tendencies for people to dig in. It is easier to defend oneself than to learn.
My nickname is an amalgamation of my two favorite thinkers: Ludwig Wittgenstein and Nagasena. They are from different time periods (20th century AD and 1st century BC) and philosophical traditions (Western philosophy and Buddhism). Both have very interesting philosophies especially in regards to linguistics. If you think that analyzing language won't get us anywhere, I highly suggest to read both of them.
Wikipedia's account of Wittgenstein and the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club seems quite telling about his personal attributes:
> In 1912 Wittgenstein joined the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club, an influential discussion group for philosophy dons and students, delivering his first paper there on 29 November that year, a four-minute talk defining philosophy as "all those primitive propositions which are assumed as true without proof by the various sciences." He dominated the society and for a time would stop attending in the early 1930s after complaints that he gave no one else a chance to speak. ...
> ... The club became infamous within popular philosophy because of a meeting on 25 October 1946 at Richard Braithwaite's rooms in King's College, Cambridge, where Karl Popper, another Viennese philosopher, had been invited as the guest speaker. Popper's paper was "Are there philosophical problems?", in which he struck up a position against Wittgenstein's, contending that problems in philosophy are real, not just linguistic puzzles as Wittgenstein argued. Accounts vary as to what happened next, but Wittgenstein apparently started waving a hot poker, demanding that Popper give him an example of a moral rule. Popper offered one – "Not to threaten visiting speakers with pokers" – at which point Russell told Wittgenstein he had misunderstood and Wittgenstein left. Popper maintained that Wittgenstein "stormed out", but it had become accepted practice for him to leave early (because of his aforementioned ability to dominate discussion). It was the only time the philosophers, three of the most eminent in the world, were ever in the same room together.
That does not mean it is obscured intentionally. quite the contrary -- if you read my comments I've explained my views in many different ways. I've put the effort in.
If you start with "L and P don't deny other viewpoints" and then you spend 3 paragraphs explaining why they do exactly that but you feel justified to say the opposite, it just sounds like needless obscurantism.
I see quite often that many people here on HN lack basic awareness of others, empathy, and humility. It comes with the territory. It has taken me years to recognize and outgrow those points of view. Perhaps the reason I persist is the hope that I can help others see how self-defeating such behaviors can be. Most people will not engage with people like I do -- it exacts a cost to deal with people that don't show much generosity or willingness to meet in the middle. I'm not saying this is you -- I don't know you -- only you and people that know you can reflect on it and assess. I would encourage you to ask people that know you well.
You call my writing obscurantism ("the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known: I've been accused of obscurantism and willful misdirection.") which implies that it was willful.
This is in incorrect assumption on your part. I was elaborating in the hopes that you would understand. If you re-read the comments, it is clear that I pushed back against the desire for a simplistic answer, since I think doing so is limiting and foolish. My elaboration provides context to help you understand.
Put another way, what you call obscurantism is better thought of as elaboration. You didn't understand, and then you lashed out. That was an egotistical, unkind thing to do. It is hard to admit you don't understand. It is easy to blame someone else for not explaining it well.
Also, using a term like obscurantism makes it plain that you are making assumptions about people's intentions. Another approach would be to simply ask and/or operate on good faith, which generally meshes with the HN guidelines. Being judgy won't do much to encourage people to take the time to discuss with you.
A useful approach here is to be patient and recognize that communication is a sense-making process.
Based on your other comments, I'm inclined to think you probably are aware of Theory of Mind, at least intellectually. The upshot is this: it is very hard to communicate effectively when you don't know what other people know. Acting in ways that do not build goodwill tend to make it even harder.
So that leaves a key question: why would you make it harder on yourself? Because of the human condition. Call it pride, ego, status-seeking, venting, whatever. But it doesn't really help much in the long term.
I'll try to summarize in the hopes that it will be clear this time. If you are willing to let go of the desire for simplistic questions and simplistic answers, then I hope you will be able to understand. (You don't have to agree to understand.)
Liberalism and pluralisms don't categorically deny the truth of other viewpoints. But they are incompatible with some other viewpoints.
The world is so interesting and nuanced! It would be tragic to expect one word answers to deep questions.