Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Feudalism for D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6817059" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>There are three (at least three) serious problems with analogies.</p><p></p><p>First, to make a good one, you have to already fully understand both the thing you are speaking of and the thing you are making an analogy to. This is actually harder than simply speaking of the thing itself, but in practice people often will imagine that making an analogy is easier than discussing the subject. They do this usually because they don't realize they don't concretely understand the thing they are speaking of.</p><p></p><p>Second, in order to understand an analogy, the speaker has to fully understand the thing the analogy references and also what particular attribute you are mapping from the object of the analogy back to the subject. But you often have no way of knowing whether the person you are speaking to has this understanding, and communicating what feature you are mapping requires a high amount of clarity. Often, it's just better to speak with clarity on the thing itself, as an analogy is usually more likely to muddle understanding than clarify it. A favorite example of mine is in the bible there is a passage where the disciples go to Christ and say, "Why are you always speaking in parables?", and he says, "Because I don't want anyone to understand me."</p><p></p><p>But by far the biggest problem with analogies is that they are almost always misused as a proof statement rather than a means of clarification (or obfuscation). Pretty much anytime an analogy is used as proof, it's wrong and you are an idiot. The method of argument goes like this. "A and B have a similar feature. Therefore B is like this in another feature because A is like that in another feature." And that's just wrong. That's only going to be true if A and B have a one for one and onto relationship with each other in every feature, and generally speaking that's just never true. When it is true, A and B are indistinguishable, and if A and B are distinguishable then the argument by analogy may be false. Almost invariably, if you see this sort of argument by analogy offered, you are dealing with someone that is too stupid to bother debating with, because they will be too stupid to ever see why they are wrong in the first place.</p><p></p><p>Hence, my delight in seeing an analogy used correctly and well for a change.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This possibly true, but before you go extending your analogy too much, there are definitely features that led to the development of one that aren't found in the other. Beyond the problem of titles not being consistent across organizations or with the actual level of authority, I'm not sure the analogy works. However one other area that both have in common is that generally, if you want to win the allegiance of a venture capitalist, you have to give him a stake in the ownership and that's precisely the method by which disparate interests are organizing in a feudal society. They idea in feudalism in theory or in the mythic chivalric texts seemed was to build this sense that all the parts were in it together as an extended kindred, and certainly intermarriage was a big part of feudalism. A feudal warlord in a society that has experienced massive social and political upheaval, understands that his underlings are loyal to him only to the extent that it enhances their own survival. But in practice what often happened in feudalism is that the individual franchises went their own way and ignored as best as they could the influence of the nominal head of the corporation. But again, here I'm taking the analogy too far. It's only meaningful if you already understand both sides of it.</p><p></p><p>And very important issues in the rise of feudalism like the shortage of currency, the difficulty in long distance communication, and the break down in the rule of law and a willingness to enforce your will by military force generally aren't features of a modern free market landscape.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6817059, member: 4937"] There are three (at least three) serious problems with analogies. First, to make a good one, you have to already fully understand both the thing you are speaking of and the thing you are making an analogy to. This is actually harder than simply speaking of the thing itself, but in practice people often will imagine that making an analogy is easier than discussing the subject. They do this usually because they don't realize they don't concretely understand the thing they are speaking of. Second, in order to understand an analogy, the speaker has to fully understand the thing the analogy references and also what particular attribute you are mapping from the object of the analogy back to the subject. But you often have no way of knowing whether the person you are speaking to has this understanding, and communicating what feature you are mapping requires a high amount of clarity. Often, it's just better to speak with clarity on the thing itself, as an analogy is usually more likely to muddle understanding than clarify it. A favorite example of mine is in the bible there is a passage where the disciples go to Christ and say, "Why are you always speaking in parables?", and he says, "Because I don't want anyone to understand me." But by far the biggest problem with analogies is that they are almost always misused as a proof statement rather than a means of clarification (or obfuscation). Pretty much anytime an analogy is used as proof, it's wrong and you are an idiot. The method of argument goes like this. "A and B have a similar feature. Therefore B is like this in another feature because A is like that in another feature." And that's just wrong. That's only going to be true if A and B have a one for one and onto relationship with each other in every feature, and generally speaking that's just never true. When it is true, A and B are indistinguishable, and if A and B are distinguishable then the argument by analogy may be false. Almost invariably, if you see this sort of argument by analogy offered, you are dealing with someone that is too stupid to bother debating with, because they will be too stupid to ever see why they are wrong in the first place. Hence, my delight in seeing an analogy used correctly and well for a change. This possibly true, but before you go extending your analogy too much, there are definitely features that led to the development of one that aren't found in the other. Beyond the problem of titles not being consistent across organizations or with the actual level of authority, I'm not sure the analogy works. However one other area that both have in common is that generally, if you want to win the allegiance of a venture capitalist, you have to give him a stake in the ownership and that's precisely the method by which disparate interests are organizing in a feudal society. They idea in feudalism in theory or in the mythic chivalric texts seemed was to build this sense that all the parts were in it together as an extended kindred, and certainly intermarriage was a big part of feudalism. A feudal warlord in a society that has experienced massive social and political upheaval, understands that his underlings are loyal to him only to the extent that it enhances their own survival. But in practice what often happened in feudalism is that the individual franchises went their own way and ignored as best as they could the influence of the nominal head of the corporation. But again, here I'm taking the analogy too far. It's only meaningful if you already understand both sides of it. And very important issues in the rise of feudalism like the shortage of currency, the difficulty in long distance communication, and the break down in the rule of law and a willingness to enforce your will by military force generally aren't features of a modern free market landscape. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Feudalism for D&D
Top