口頭填充 當你分享顯然是個人意見的時候,並不需要以「在我看來」作為開場白。「我認為」、「我可能錯了」、「在我觀點中」,這些實際上是修辭上的冗詞 - 作為前綴的防範措施,以減輕不愉快的反應。 它們通過預先將話語拖入主觀的煉獄來抵禦異議,通過將立場放入無法證偽的範疇來阻止挑戰。 我理解這些冗餘陳述試圖建立的禮儀和友好性,但聽到某人在同一對話/文章中多次使用它們是令人疲憊的;這會分散注意力,並削弱你的實質。我們知道這是意見,因為這些都是意見!我們知道你可能錯了,因為你是人類,會犯錯!只需說出來。不要害怕。 困擾我的更深層問題是對於異議本身的潛在厭惡。彷彿其本質就是不禮貌:一種潛在的恐懼,害怕冒犯你的言語對手,因為你的主張與他們相悖。 這種防範習慣將實質性的交流縮減為冗長的迂迴,半數的詞語除了讓說話者感到心理舒適外,毫無意義。富有生產性的對抗環境孕育出最佳的認識:擁抱它們,不要隱藏。 自信的對話不需要傲慢,但確實需要勇氣,說出你所想的,而不必為說出這些話而假裝道歉。如果你已經做好了充分的準備,就不要用口頭填充來稀釋它;如果你相信某些值得說的話,就直接說出來。 如果你不相信它到可以坦率地說出來,也許你就不應該分享它。
有些相關:
𝐃𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐲 (𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲.𝐢𝐨)
𝐃𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐲 (𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲.𝐢𝐨)7月5日 18:32
"Axiology" is one of those words often used when you fancy yourself too sophisticated to say "morality". The distinctions are almost entirely superficial and predicated on misunderstanding of what morality fundamentally is. Morality is the all-consuming baselayer of value discernment. All the aesthetic and epistemic things axiology bundles within itself... those are moral derivatives. Morality is not necessarily prescriptive, it's a set of value judgements using moral frameworks like care/harm, sanctity/degradation, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, etc.. Whereas ethics is prescriptive, meaning "here's how we will behave based on these moral beliefs" (eg a code of conduct). The political is essentially prescriptive morality at the national scale. Axiology either misstates this distinction or intentionally ignores it so it can offer a more stilted term for the same things morality entails. The best justification I see for the word is people seem to chronically misinterpret "morality" as only a good/bad thing and feel like it pivots the discussion into blame-game territory, and "axiology" diffuses this by offering a sterilized word that won't upset anyone but performs exactly the same duties. There is nothing that operates at a more foundational substrate of "what do we value and why?" than morality. If you want to venture into a deeper territory than this, you are delving into the genetic, the neurological. It's no longer a philosophical endeavor beyond morality; moral foundations are the supreme ethical, aesthetic, and political authority through which all values and stances are derived. Slapping cerebral-sounding terms onto straightforward concepts doesn’t make them more intellectual, only opaque and inaccessible so as to impress your Less Wrong friends: - “Straussian analysis”? Oh, you mean like reading between the lines. - “Optimizing for disparate utility functions"? Yes, I too prefer different things sometimes. - “Stochastic”? You could have said "random" and been just fine. And so on, and so forth. The rationalist community in particular loves this kind of rebranding because it makes everyday observations sound like you're engaged in sophisticated big-brain thinking. But your grandma could describe the same situations just as accurately with simpler language. It's the same pattern: take a common concept (I'm "stuck between a rock and a hard place") and wrap it in pseudo-sophisticated florid nomenclature (I'm now "in a suboptimum equilibrium within a Molochian system"), and suddenly you're not complaining about a bad situation, you're analyzing coordination failures in multi-agent systems. Morality is the hypernym structure that everything value-oriented resides under; "axiology" is just morality wearing a fancy suit.
很棒的評論,來自 'Stackhouse
來自 'Stackhouse
7.47K