Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q60,42: Difference between revisions

From LithoGraphica
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
18,420 edits
copy markup from Q66,69
 
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
18,420 edits
m Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q6042 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q60,42: Alias comma number or interchangeable Way: order
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
<ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
<ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">


<li class="field_geo" value="6038" data-dimension="S2">Fiction doesn't teach us anything  ->  Aron Ra's proposition. I don't think it's true, on a subtle level of failing the question-begging test. it's technically accurate to say fiction doesn't contain any educational information. but that's not what people usually mean by the statement "fiction teaches us". they are referring to a more abstract notion of learning by picking up general patterns and comparing analogies to the real world — a process of building ontological models through true or untrue scenarios using every scenario as a thought experiment. if you do that systematically enough it's essentially similar to applying a scientific method in different environments, although it entails you'll probably stop believing in Christianity after reading a few secular books and the bible and trying to compare all of them to each other and real life.
{{li|start=y|I=S2/STM|Q=60,38|Q2=6038}}Fiction doesn't teach us anything / There is no didactic fiction ->  Aron Ra's proposition. I don't think it's true, on a subtle level of failing the question-begging test. it's technically accurate to say fiction doesn't contain any educational information. but that's not what people usually mean by the statement "fiction teaches us". they are referring to a more abstract notion of learning by picking up general patterns and comparing analogies to the real world — a process of building ontological models through true or untrue scenarios using every scenario as a thought experiment. if you do that systematically enough it's essentially similar to applying a scientific method in different environments, although it entails you'll probably stop believing in Christianity after reading a few secular books and the bible and trying to compare all of them to each other and real life.


</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6039" data-dimension="S2">Fiction is educational  ->  for a very long time I had a hard time believing this, although I never would have said that fiction doesn't teach people about creating art or about using language — only that there is an open question on whether it teaches people about ""life"". typically when people say this they mean that it teaches about "experiences", and gives people a model of a demographic of people without exclusively boxing them into a stereotype.
{{li|I=F2/Fy|Q=60,38|Q2=6038}}Fiction never speaks about reality (sense) / I am neither a reader nor writer of didactic fiction ... ({{censor|Nabokov}}) {{9k|RD|Q12,1,13}}


</li><li class="field_mdem" value="6043" data-dimension="S2">Non-fiction doesn't teach us anything  ->  counter to Aron Ra's proposition. if you actually understand the way people learn, though ontological models and metaphors, it's easy to see how a factual book could fail to teach people anything because they can't understand it through their current models and fail to believe that it looks plausible. in some cases people don't learn well through facts and learn better through questions. but I think the "street epistemology" concept is shortsighted too, because you have to ask what it is about questions that actually makes them work.
{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=60,39|Q2=6039}}Fiction is educational  -> for a very long time I had a hard time believing this, although I never would have said that fiction doesn't teach people about creating art or about using language — only that there is an open question on whether it teaches people about ""life"". typically when people say this they mean that it teaches about "experiences", and gives people a model of a demographic of people without exclusively boxing them into a stereotype.
 
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=60,43|Q2=6043}}Non-fiction doesn't teach us anything  ->  counter to Aron Ra's proposition. if you actually understand the way people learn, though ontological models and metaphors, it's easy to see how a factual book could fail to teach people anything because they can't understand it through their current models and fail to believe that it looks plausible. in some cases people don't learn well through facts and learn better through questions. but I think the "street epistemology" concept is shortsighted too, because you have to ask what it is about questions that actually makes them work.
 
{{li|I=S2/MX|Q=618|Q2=618}}All simulations of reality are political {{9k|RD|Q12,1,13}}


</li></ol>
</li></ol>
Line 21: Line 25:
<ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
<ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">


<li class="field_geo" data-remark="science fiction" value="6040" data-dimension="S2">Narratives exist to portray possible societies or situations  ->  this answer is fully compatible with historical materialism, or at least existential materialism. it allows weaving ties between the individual and historical period.
{{li|start=y|I=S2/STM|Q=60,40|Q2=6040}}Narratives exist to portray possible societies or situations  ->  this answer is fully compatible with historical materialism, or at least existential materialism. it allows weaving ties between the individual and historical period.


</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="6041" data-dimension="S2">Narratives exist to depict each possible kind of individual / Narratives exist to tell us about individuals  ->  this is the answer I do not like. it's drenched in intentional or unintentional psychoanalysis. and I'd argue it ultimately encourages racism, simply because it encourages treating past hardships as irrelevant to current individual lives while treating the successes of current individuals as un-repeatable flukes. without a causal analysis of history and historical patterns you lose the ability to argue for consistent and cumulative social progress really quickly.
{{li|I=S2/ES|Q=60,41|Q2=6041}}Narratives exist to depict each possible kind of individual / Narratives exist to tell us about individuals  ->  this is the answer I do not like. it's drenched in intentional or unintentional psychoanalysis. and I'd argue it ultimately encourages racism, simply because it encourages treating past hardships as irrelevant to current individual lives while treating the successes of current individuals as un-repeatable flukes. without a causal analysis of history and historical patterns you lose the ability to argue for consistent and cumulative social progress really quickly.


</li></ol>
</li></ol>

Latest revision as of 04:44, 3 October 2026

Main entry

  1. Why do narratives exist?

Narratives exist for no reason

  1. Fiction doesn't teach us anything / There is no didactic fiction -> Aron Ra's proposition. I don't think it's true, on a subtle level of failing the question-begging test. it's technically accurate to say fiction doesn't contain any educational information. but that's not what people usually mean by the statement "fiction teaches us". they are referring to a more abstract notion of learning by picking up general patterns and comparing analogies to the real world — a process of building ontological models through true or untrue scenarios using every scenario as a thought experiment. if you do that systematically enough it's essentially similar to applying a scientific method in different environments, although it entails you'll probably stop believing in Christianity after reading a few secular books and the bible and trying to compare all of them to each other and real life.
  2. Fiction never speaks about reality (sense) / I am neither a reader nor writer of didactic fiction ... (pronounced censored) / (9k)
  3. Fiction is educational -> for a very long time I had a hard time believing this, although I never would have said that fiction doesn't teach people about creating art or about using language — only that there is an open question on whether it teaches people about ""life"". typically when people say this they mean that it teaches about "experiences", and gives people a model of a demographic of people without exclusively boxing them into a stereotype.
  4. Non-fiction doesn't teach us anything -> counter to Aron Ra's proposition. if you actually understand the way people learn, though ontological models and metaphors, it's easy to see how a factual book could fail to teach people anything because they can't understand it through their current models and fail to believe that it looks plausible. in some cases people don't learn well through facts and learn better through questions. but I think the "street epistemology" concept is shortsighted too, because you have to ask what it is about questions that actually makes them work.
  5. All simulations of reality are political / (9k)

Related

  1. Narratives exist to portray possible societies or situations -> this answer is fully compatible with historical materialism, or at least existential materialism. it allows weaving ties between the individual and historical period.
  2. Narratives exist to depict each possible kind of individual / Narratives exist to tell us about individuals -> this is the answer I do not like. it's drenched in intentional or unintentional psychoanalysis. and I'd argue it ultimately encourages racism, simply because it encourages treating past hardships as irrelevant to current individual lives while treating the successes of current individuals as un-repeatable flukes. without a causal analysis of history and historical patterns you lose the ability to argue for consistent and cumulative social progress really quickly.

Ideologies or fields

  1. pronounced Fantasy / Kingdom Hearts

Wavebuilder combinations

pronounced P: pronounced Wave-builder: forms result [Item]
--
along with [Item]
?? (pronounced proposed / Fy)1-1-1
forming from [Item]
?? (pronounced proposed / Fy)1-1-1
--
--
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q60,42&oldid=46551"