The concept of Rule Beating from Systems Thinking seems apt. You have some goal so you introduce a rule, but if you choose a bad rule, it ends up making things worse. The solution is to recognize that it was a bad rule, repeal it, and find a better one.
Yeah, at first I was comparing it with Netflix where you’re paying for content and it seemed like an awful deal because you already get the content without paying. The thing that made me decide it was worth it is when I compared it to Spotify instead. A service I use multiple times daily where I can get the content for free anyway, but paying to get rid of the ads just removes all of the friction from the experience.
I’ve used React, Vue, Knockout, and just plain vanilla JS, and Vue is what I reach for now for personal projects. React is great if it’s already set up but I don’t want to waste any time with a build system for personal projects. With Vue I just add a link to a CDN, copy paste the hello world code in and I’m off to the races.
Disclaimer: I’m interested in relativity and have been reading about it lately but I’m no authority.
> We all move through time at one second per second, don’t we?
You need to define “move through time”. The only way to measure time is with a clock, and the clock’s motion relative to you affects the measurement.
If you let everyone define “time” as the thing measured by the watch on their wrist, then everyone moves through time at one second per second, but since people are in motion relative to each other and therefore have different frames of reference, their clocks will measure different times.
Since no frame of reference is privileged, there is no “absolute time”. Of course you could pick one and measure every event against that one, but that would be an arbitrary choice.
This is my understanding. If I’m wrong, I’d be happy to be corrected.
That's my understanding too but I am also saying that "less you move in time" needs to be more rigorously defined. As it stands above I'm not sure it makes sense, even though it might be a useful fiction to get a handle on the weirdness of it all.
I read the first 100 pages or so of Philisophical Investigations before giving up since I had lost track of the lines of reasoning. Here's what I got out of what I did read though:
Language is far more important in philosophy and life than we think. The biggest takeaway I got from the part of this book I read is a way of looking at problems with the limitations of language in mind. Ask yourself: to what extent is thinking speaking? What is thinking without language? Is it even possible, or is that something else?
There's this interesting idea that has stuck with me, which is that when we say words, "pictures" are "brought before" our mind. Is language (speaking, reading/writing) simply a way for us to conjure up these mental images in other people's minds? If so, how can we be sure that what they see is what we intended for them to see? I think it's clear from experience that the images are mostly right, most of the time. But when they're not, we have misunderstandings. Another interesting statement made in the book (iirc) is that we only need more language when we feel there is a misunderstanding. The word "more" is important in the previous sentence. The idea here is that when we speak, we have some desired outcome from the outset. Once we feel that our speaking has led to the outcome we wanted, we are satisfied to stop speaking. It is only when the person we're speaking to isn't doing what we want, or seems to be getting the wrong mental picture that we need to continue speaking (this is what I meant by "more language": to continue speaking).
There's another interesting area Wittgenstein explores (which I can't admit to following very well), but I'll try to conjure a mental image in your head of it ;). Basically, so far his argument (if I understood correctly) is that "the truth" is the mental images we see and the actions we take, and language is just a means to those ends. He then argues (again, if I understood him correctly) that we usually run into trouble when we take language as the starting point of knowledge. That's not very clear, so what do I mean by that? It's sort of like, words work well when we're using them to achieve some outcome. But they start to confuse us when we use them without a desired outcome from the outset: when we use them to gain knowledge. Words are not facts that we can logically make deductions from to discover new knowledge.
Philosophical Investigations is not exactly hard to read, but the style of argument Wittgenstein uses is very slippery. He's trying to poke holes in the conceptual pictures and assumptions we use, and which often lead us to nonsense or philosophical debates that can be dissolved through conceptual clarification. It's nothing less than a full on broadside against an entire tradition of philosophical thought extending back to Plato.
I would say the first 100 or so pages of the book are a form of conceptual cartography around language. Later, he uses that "grammatical analysis" to look at psychology, vision, pain, and many other topics.
There are a lot of incredibly consequential arguments and thought experiments in the book, but you can pare them down to some generalizations:
- Language is a form of behavior.
- Language is public and cannot be fundamentally private. As are rules and rule following.
- For almost every case, meaning is use in a form of life (there are some caveats, like color, which also rely on an ostensive definition). An explanation of the "grammar" of a word, is an explanation of a rule for the use of the word in a particular context.
- Understanding is akin to an ability.
- Many of our complex mental and cognitive and cogitative abilities, are manifest in our behavior, the most rich and complex being language.
- Fundamental skepticism, of a Cartesian sort, is nonsense. Humans are social animals with the ability for an enormously complex language rich in concepts; the mind/body, inside/outside, distinction is a false picture that leads to nonsense. Do not mistake the personal for the private.
I think we're interpreting that in different ways. I'm assuming you read it as something like "words can't be used to communicate (knowledge)", which you're seeking to disprove by showing me that I only gained that knowledge through Wittgenstein's words. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
That's not what I meant though. I meant that words are like signs; they point at the real thing. We must be careful not to confuse the sign for the thing itself. We can't simply rearrange words and assume that what this new sign, this new combination of words points to, is "real". Not all words or sentences point to anything, or anything meaningful. And the trap we sometimes fall into (as philosophers especially?) is assuming that they always mean something.
Edit: First the thing exists, then we use a word to refer to it. The mistake is reversing that, by thinking that by creating new words or combinations of words, we can bring something into existence.
Just to put a button this excellent summary, the classic example of "rearranging words to form a sentence that we think has meaning" that Wittgenstein uses in Investigations is the question: "What is the meaning of life?"
We think intuitively that because we constructed this sentence with words, that it must have meaning, and must have an answer - as you say, it is flipping the causal relationship between starting with a sign and using language versus starting with language and trying to find a sign. This question is ultimately the latter.
Would my opinion be that you are wrong, it would not imply that:
- I'm right about you being wrong;
- my own view is right and spread it would be an act of correction.
> I meant that words are like signs; they point at the real thing.
Nothingness doesn't point at anything real by definition.
> We must be careful not to confuse the sign for the thing itself.
Nor the sign with an interpretation act stimulated by some sign.
> We can't simply rearrange words and assume that what this new sign, this new combination of words points to, is "real".
Words don't exist outside some interpretation process, by the way.
>Edit: First the thing exists, then we use a word to refer to it.
That's a bit trickier. Because before someone use a word to refer to something, this word didn't exist. Naming things is a performative action. Through words, not only can you gain new knowledge that you can challenge through non-verbal actions, but they change the reality itself as it introduces new relationships in the world that where not present before there were used as a reference tool.
This is the exact sort of question that Wittgenstein addresses and created a terrifying argument to press a wedge into. In the Investigations he formulates the Rule Following Argument which in many aspects mirrors the underdetermination argument for computational anti-realism; any physical state embodies any computational function under some arbitrary description (also known as pancomputationalism or computational trivialism). Wittgenstein intended to show-- and I think succeeded-- that meanings are underdetermined logically, and thus non-rational (not irrational) forces determine how one means something. Thus, causal structures of social bodies that holistically determine meanings.
This argument was initially somewhat ignored until revived by the great Saul Kripke in his book Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. I take this to be one of the great epistemological problems, joining the ranks of similar challenges like Descartes' demon. Like Descartes, Wittgenstein offered a solution, albeit a much less religious one than Descartes.
I’ve come across a similar line of thought while reading about capitalism. When technology improves such that it takes less time to perform work, there are three possible outcomes:
1. The labourers finish the work in less time and get more leisure time (production and labourers stay constant, time spent decreases)
2. Some of the labourers are fired since fewer are needed to perform the same work in the same amount of time now (time and production stay constant, labourers decrease)
3. The same amount of labourers work the same amount of time, but produce more due to the increased efficiency. (time and labourers stay constant, production increases)
In my experience, unless you work for yourself, outcome 1 will never happen. Outcome 3 is desirable from a broader perspective because that extra production must be benefitting someone. But I don’t see any upside to option 2. Some people lose their jobs and there’s no extra production. I guess you could argue it would have been a waste for them to continue working on something that could be done more efficiently without them, so in the long term it works out, but in the short term they lose.
That's because you're stopping too soon with option 2. There are actually two sub-options to option 2:
2a. Some of the laborers are fired, and they can't find any other work so they now aren't producing anything (time and production stay constant, laborers decrease).
2b. Some of the laborers are fired, and that means a pool of unused labor now exists, which entrepreneurs hire to do new jobs that couldn't be done at all before because there was no labor available (time and laborers stay constant, production increases).
Outcome 2a will virtually never happen in a healthy economy because there are always more things that people want, so there are always additional things that could be produced if labor were available. So what actually happens, at least in a healthy economy, is outcome 2b. If you're seeing outcome 2a, it means the economy is not healthy: something is preventing the natural process of labor that is no longer needed for existing production being redirected into new production. Almost always that something is the government.
I had the opposite experience a few years ago when applying for jobs for after I graduated. I stopped trying to learn about each company and stopped writing cover letters. Instead, I just wrote a 2 or 3 sentence, completely generic blurb about myself, then sent it with my resume to as many companies as I could find in the area I wanted and with the tech I wanted. Only when I heard back did I actually look in to the companies.
I think a key takeaway is that less is more. People don’t have time to read long cover letters and resumes. Keep it as short as possible but no shorter. Cut out everything that’s not your best selling points.
I'm reading a book called Capital in the Twenty-First Century right now, which is all about this stuff. I'm only about halfway through right now, but here are some points from the book I find interesting (all of them iirc since I don't have access to the book right now):
* the author chooses not to use the terms lower, middle, and upper class because doing so just leads to arguments about where to draw the lines. Interesting that so many comments on this thread are just people arguing about what "upper class" means because it's a personal term. He instead splits the distributions of income into three parts, the bottom 50%, the 40% above that, and the top 10% and simply refers to them by centile and decile. The "top decile" has an unambiguous meaning, whereas "upper class" could mean anything.
* there are three distributions: income from labour, income from capital, and combined total income. The people at the top of one distribution aren't necessarily the ones at the top of the other. The book analyzes inequality across different countries across the past two hundred years or so, super interesting stuff
* only when you get into the top 0.1% are you earning more income from capital than income from labour
* inequality of income from labour is far lower than inequality of income from capital and always has been in every society in every period
* inequality from income from labour is _easier_ to morally justify than inequality from capital, but still not necessarily just in any absolute sense
* the bottom 50% owns only about 5% of the total capital
reply