Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fkcgnad 1164 days ago
>It's a male-heavy class and when these terms come up, they tend to laugh it off as some kind of esotherical side-quest.

It is a sort of side quest. You think the discussion is about something profound but really you're just discussing English vocabulary.

You're taking arbitrary symbols/words with arbitrarily vague meanings and trying to demarcate an exact meaning as if the words exist intrinsically in reality. They don't, all words are made up.

It's like I make up this word "mokadan" and I define it as the difference in emotion between what a dog feels for its human owner and what a human owner feels for his dog.

You see what I did there? you can talk about that mokadan for days trying to pin down whats going on with the word but it's just something that's arbitrarily made up by me. I can make up other vague concepts as well and assign it random vocab like "somofin": the shape that is exactly in between a hexagon and semicircle. And now a group of people can spend days trying draw what that shape exactly is. Sort of a pointless endeavor down what I call linguistic trap doors that disguise themselves as deep concepts.

The thing with human language is that all of it is made up. All language consists of made up words and symbols attached to arbitrary definitions. The languages are so entrenched in our brains that we often can't see the difference between actual concepts and vague vocabulary. So often We get stuck in discussing what is simply linguistic phenomena like what is the difference between "sympathy" and "empathy." Other trap doors include what is "life" or what is "sentience".

The vagueness of the word is arbitrary because humans picked to define the word vaguely. The vagueness is manufactured, it's artificial. There's no real point in trying to unroll all of it.

You commented on how you were in a male dominated class implying that there's something inherit with males being too simplistic and laughing off the discussion.

I think the opposite is true. The "males" who laughed it off are in a higher plane of meta understanding and they comprehend the pointlessness of trying to demarcate vague vocabulary. They were right to laugh it off in my opinion.

I was in a class that were mostly females and when they tried to veer off the discussion into one of these linguistic traps. I attempted to explain to them the concept of the linguistic trap they were falling for but my efforts were in vain. They were perplexed by my explanation and still didn't understand. They continued down that trap door and ended up wasting everyone's time.

1 comments

Well, I don’t agree. Specifically on your point that this is a discussion about the meaning of words. It’s a discussion about the concepts and scenarios described by those words. We can call it anything we want, but those “concepts” we describe are not the same things. I do not care what word anyone wants to use to describe something — as long as it still ensures we’re talking about the same thing. I don’t run a philosophy or Latin class, it’s not about letters and words, at all. That’s entirely beside the point.
The concept is arbitrary. It's a made up concept. It's an arbitrary collection of empathic and and sympathetic traits bundled up together to be a definition of another arbitrary word.

Similar to "what is sentience?" People are arbitrarily ascribing different traits like intelligence, free will and aspects of "understanding" to the word "sentience". When people debate over whether a thing is "sentient" or not they are simply debating about the definition of a vocabulary word. What traits does the word "sentience" encompass? That's it. The vagueness of the definition of the word is what's illusory here.

The collection of traits that make up a definition are arbitrarily chosen to be vague. The word actualizes the arbitrary concept and the vagueness follows it making you think that you are discussing a concept when you are only discussing a definition.

There is nothing profound to talk about here. You're just trying to differentiate subtle differences between two vocabulary words here. The concepts behind the words themselves are by themselves ultimately simplistic.

Something profound and related to empathy is the discussion of the chemicals behind the emotions. The exact neural and biological pathway to actualization of these emotions. Additionally the evolutionary origin of these emotions. Why has natural caused some of us to feel this way and others to feel less this way. This is profound. What is not profound is the difference between the vocabulary words: empathy and sympathy.

Well, I don't follow, at all. The fact that you seem to love getting lost in words (just as much as I do) is sort of demonstrated and at the same time diminished by your explanation on how (certain?) words/concepts are arbitrary — making it sound like it being 'arbitrary' has negative value. Why does that matter?

If I like a song, and say so, it's arbitrary. Why bother saying it? A mix of frequencies hitting my ear drums and matching some form of pattern in my brain is what I am technically excited about, but it's easier to say that... I just like the song.

I personally find it hard to follow the intention behind your argument, but I also feel it may be a waste of time for both of us to dive deeper, here.

I'd argue that the basic idea of a word is to describe "things", in a recallable form. If people want to discuss their interpretations of a word, I see no harm and wonder what the issue is.

You also seem to (unintentionally?) shift the original discussion over to a different context, from discussing the interpretations of certain words to "what is a worthy, or profound discussion to have", which you can freely do, but makes me wonder, again, what the intention is.