Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5079149" data-attributes="member: 59082">I disagree that you disagree, or at least I think you are disagreeing with something that I am not saying <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. The example I used was specifically, and intentionally, in reference to an edition: I said "X-edition sucks," I did not say "You are wrong." Later in the same post I said that I will use "IMHO" or "as I see it" when I'm voicing my perspective on someone else (or their perspective).So it is a subtle, but very, very important difference. One references something nonhuman and impersonal (in this case, an edition of a game), whereas the other references a human, or the way a human plays. It is the difference between saying "Bowling sucks" and "You suck for liking bowling" or "Your like of bowling is wrong." I am saying that, when voicing the former ("bowling sucks") there is no need to disclaim with "IMHO" as the suckitude of bowling (or lack thereof) is inherently one's opinion.But I think the key is using words that are contextually appropriate and best convey the meaning one intends. It is fine to say "X-edition sucks" because it is an obvious personal opinion about a non-human thing; when referring to another's opinion, it is actually more accurate to say (as you did), "I disagree with you" or "I think that you are wrong." If I say, "your opinion sucks" all I am conveying is my affective responseto your opinion, and not really even voicing what my opinion is. But if I say, "I disagree with you," at least I am conveying some element of thought and not just affectation.But again, there is no need to say "IMHO, X-edition sucks" because not only is it not a person or a person's viewpoint that one is referring to, the very word "suck" implies subjectivity--it is emotional and affective, which are inherently subjective.Too true. But, not to get metaphysical on yo' ass, what is "objective meaning?" That's partially the point, I think. There is a kind of irony to the whole "One True Wayism" perspective in that it is both pointing out that all viewpoints are subjective, but also implying an underlying objective, "true" approach to interpersonal relations that we all shalt follow, akin to what Jurgen Habermas called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction" target="_blank">"performative contradiction."</a> (talk about jargon...Jargon Habermas? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />).Or, as the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy would say, "All dharmas are empty, including that one." Saying "There is no one true way" is itself a subtle kind of One True Wayism. This is not to say that we should all become nihilists and believe in naahthing; but that we should (imho) hold the most inclusive, truthful worldview that we can imagine, with the understanding that it can never be "complete," and thereby remain open to forever evolving our worldview.Did I go too far? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />? I don't follow. What sort of threadrapping are you talking about and who exactly is supporting it?</blockquote>

Verification