Comments on: The apparent deceptiveness of the world http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:56:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Seth Edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170545 Seth Edenbaum Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:34:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170545 "Appearances are not deceptive; they only appear to be" “Appearances are not deceptive; they only appear to be”

]]> By: Roy Belmont http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170467 Roy Belmont Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:50:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170467 Where is appearance? Does it begin and end at the outermost surface of the appearing? Or does it only begin there, and continue through the means of perception to the mind? And where's that edge? It's impossible to talk about appearance without talking about perception without talking about time. Once time's in the equation things get all relative. Also, I have it on good faith that the solid things of the world are composed of bouncing small particles whose whirling gives me the illusion of their solidity. That solidity - neither deceptive nor true - is as much essence as any other attribute of material things. Appearance semantically leans toward sight, but it could as well stand in for the ineluctable partiality of experience. Where is appearance?
Does it begin and end at the outermost surface of the appearing?
Or does it only begin there, and continue through the means of perception to the mind?
And where’s that edge?
It’s impossible to talk about appearance without talking about perception without talking about time.
Once time’s in the equation things get all relative.
Also, I have it on good faith that the solid things of the world are composed of bouncing small particles whose whirling gives me the illusion of their solidity. That solidity – neither deceptive nor true – is as much essence as any other attribute of material things.
Appearance semantically leans toward sight, but it could as well stand in for the ineluctable partiality of experience.

]]> By: Harald Korneliussen http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170365 Harald Korneliussen Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:48:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170365 Everyone loves my baby, but my baby loves nobody but me... You know the logical conclusion. * * * I am my baby. Everyone loves my baby,
but my baby loves nobody but me…

You know the logical conclusion.

*

*

*

I am my baby.

]]> By: Brendan http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170361 Brendan Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:33:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170361 'But the same kind of thinking is now found in other places. I mentioned public choice/rational actor theory in politics, but evolutionary psychology (EP) is probably an even better example.' Yes but EP openly derives (according to the version normally propounded by Steven Pinker amongst others) from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(psychology)" rel="nofollow"> cognitivism</a> which itself is a kissing cousin of Chomskyan linguistics. In fact EP, generally speaking, just <i>is</i> cognitivism given a Darwinian gloss. And cognitivism is an 'appearance and essence' theory par excellence. But that just goes to show how right you are. EP (as generally understood today) is probably the Freudianism de nos jours. ‘But the same kind of thinking is now found in other places. I mentioned public choice/rational actor theory in politics, but evolutionary psychology (EP) is probably an even better example.’

Yes but EP openly derives (according to the version normally propounded by Steven Pinker amongst others) from cognitivism which itself is a kissing cousin of Chomskyan linguistics. In fact EP, generally speaking, just is cognitivism given a Darwinian gloss. And cognitivism is an ‘appearance and essence’ theory par excellence.

But that just goes to show how right you are. EP (as generally understood today) is probably the Freudianism de nos jours.

]]> By: shah8 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170356 shah8 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:06:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170356 It is surprising that yogi berra hasn't been mentioned here. Most of his quotes are of this nature...about preemptorial anticipation of conclusions... It is surprising that yogi berra hasn’t been mentioned here. Most of his quotes are of this nature…about preemptorial anticipation of conclusions…

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170355 John Quiggin Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:47:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170355 "To take the example of Freud, there is a certain plausibility to the idea that I’m having a dream about urination because I have to urinate but would prefer to stay asleep. Or that I “can’t remember” a joke because I unconsciously realize that it would be inappropriate to tell it in present company." I find the first of these plausible. On the other hand, my experience of the second situation is exactly the opposite - the jokes I can remember in social situations are frequently inappropriate. “To take the example of Freud, there is a certain plausibility to the idea that I’m having a dream about urination because I have to urinate but would prefer to stay asleep. Or that I “can’t remember” a joke because I unconsciously realize that it would be inappropriate to tell it in present company.”

I find the first of these plausible. On the other hand, my experience of the second situation is exactly the opposite – the jokes I can remember in social situations are frequently inappropriate.

]]> By: Chris http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170353 Chris Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:39:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170353 The instantiation of the quote is another Wittgenstein anecdote; W. "Why did people ever think that the sun went round the earth?" Straight man "Because it looked as if the sun went round the earth." W. "And what would it look like if the earth went round the sun?" The instantiation of the quote is another Wittgenstein anecdote;
W. “Why did people ever think that the sun went round the earth?”
Straight man “Because it looked as if the sun went round the earth.”
W. “And what would it look like if the earth went round the sun?”

]]> By: Martin Bento http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170344 Martin Bento Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:19:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170344 "It’s arguable that direct perceptions are usually closer to the mark than the results of the kinds of analysis (Freudianism, a lot of marxist and marxisant thinking, most public choice theory) that purport to strip away surface appearances and reveal the underlying truth." Geez, don't tell Einstein or Bohr. While Freud and Marx claim to see below the surface, many of their basic ideas at least do not seem impossible to common observation. Which is closer to the way the universe appears - that the rich take advantage of the poor, or that time passes at different rates for different observers depending on their acceleration? That humans sometimes act irrationally due to repressed sexual impulses or that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing? If we're going to start holding it against ideas that they are contrary to appearance, modern physics is the worst modern offender and likely the worst in history. Here's to looking beyond appearance. “It’s arguable that direct perceptions are usually closer to the mark than the results of the kinds of analysis (Freudianism, a lot of marxist and marxisant thinking, most public choice theory) that purport to strip away surface appearances and reveal the underlying truth.”

Geez, don’t tell Einstein or Bohr. While Freud and Marx claim to see below the surface, many of their basic ideas at least do not seem impossible to common observation. Which is closer to the way the universe appears – that the rich take advantage of the poor, or that time passes at different rates for different observers depending on their acceleration? That humans sometimes act irrationally due to repressed sexual impulses or that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing? If we’re going to start holding it against ideas that they are contrary to appearance, modern physics is the worst modern offender and likely the worst in history.

Here’s to looking beyond appearance.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170328 John Quiggin Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:59:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170328 "I doubt there are many people nowadays who read Freud or Marx as though they (and they alone, perhaps) had access to some universal truth that lies ‘underneath’ reality" But the same kind of thinking is now found in other places. I mentioned public choice/rational actor theory in politics, but evolutionary psychology is probably an even better example. “I doubt there are many people nowadays who read Freud or Marx as though they (and they alone, perhaps) had access to some universal truth that lies ‘underneath’ reality”

But the same kind of thinking is now found in other places. I mentioned public choice/rational actor theory in politics, but evolutionary psychology is probably an even better example.

]]> By: Charlie Whitaker http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170320 Charlie Whitaker Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:32:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170320 Or ... 'look again' v. 'stop looking'. Or … ‘look again’ v. ‘stop looking’.

]]> By: Charlie Whitaker http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170319 Charlie Whitaker Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:30:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170319 But it's an odd kind of contradiction - not symmetrical. One half of it is merely qualifying the 'fact that things are what they seem', suggesting you take a second look, while the other half is attempting a categorical whitewash: 'things are what they seem'. But it’s an odd kind of contradiction – not symmetrical. One half of it is merely qualifying the ‘fact that things are what they seem’, suggesting you take a second look, while the other half is attempting a categorical whitewash: ‘things are what they seem’.

]]> By: Charlie Whitaker http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170318 Charlie Whitaker Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:22:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170318 It looks to me like a paradox generated by nesting. The 'they' pulls the first statement through into the second statement, which then becomes contradictory: "things are not what they seem, including the fact that things are what they seem". It looks to me like a paradox generated by nesting. The ‘they’ pulls the first statement through into the second statement, which then becomes contradictory: “things are not what they seem, including the fact that things are what they seem”.

]]> By: Adam Kotsko http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170312 Adam Kotsko Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:01:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170312 What accounts for the fact that at first glance, certain aspects of Marxist and Freudian theory appear to be true? To take the example of Freud, there is a certain plausibility to the idea that I'm having a dream about urination because I have to urinate but would prefer to stay asleep. Or that I "can't remember" a joke because I unconsciously realize that it would be inappropriate to tell it in present company. What accounts for the fact that at first glance, certain aspects of Marxist and Freudian theory appear to be true? To take the example of Freud, there is a certain plausibility to the idea that I’m having a dream about urination because I have to urinate but would prefer to stay asleep. Or that I “can’t remember” a joke because I unconsciously realize that it would be inappropriate to tell it in present company.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170309 engels Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:44:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170309 #18, I should have said. #18, I should have said.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-170308 engels Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:42:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/29/the-apparent-deceptiveness-of-the-world/#comment-170308 <blockquote>its problem is just that it is false because its second half contradicts its first half. I think that might be all that makes it so mind-bending. While appearing to say something about appearance and reality, it actually says one thing and then takes it back by saying the opposite. That’s all the analysis it really needs.</blockquote> This is dead wrong, I think, as I tried to explain in #68. The second clause does not "say the opposite" of the first clause, quite the reverse: the first clause is implied by the second (because of the word "only") and is therefore unnecessary. The "paradox" arises from the self-reference in the second clause.
its problem is just that it is false because its second half contradicts its first half. I think that might be all that makes it so mind-bending. While appearing to say something about appearance and reality, it actually says one thing and then takes it back by saying the opposite. That’s all the analysis it really needs.

This is dead wrong, I think, as I tried to explain in #68.

The second clause does not “say the opposite” of the first clause, quite the reverse: the first clause is implied by the second (because of the word “only”) and is therefore unnecessary. The “paradox” arises from the self-reference in the second clause.

]]>