Talk:Deepity

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon philosophy.svg

This Philosophy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png


Contents

[edit] Two more examples

I think these two count:

Que sera, sera: whatever will be, will be

Trivially true, of course, but the deeper meaning - "be a fatalist, what you do makes no difference" is rubbish.

Everything happens for a reason

OK, so the bridge collapsed because the supports finally gave out, that's a reason. But the implication is that it happened to some purpose, and that's just false.

Think you should also include Dennett's original example:

Love is just a word

"Love" is just a word. "Apple" is just a word too, but you can't eat the word "apple", while you can eat an apple. Another use/mention distinction failure.

Ciphergoth (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Love is just a word" is in the lead section talking about Dennett's formulation of it. Scarlet A.pngtheist 21:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops, so it is - thanks! Ciphergoth (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Definition sentence doesn't make sense

"It refers to a statement that has (at least) two meanings; one that is true but trivial, and another [meaning] that sounds profound, but is essentially false, or meaningless with respect to this deeper meaning"

This is confusing. What the second half of this sentence is saying is basically "another meaning that sounds profound but is meaningless with respect to this other meaning." It's saying the second meaning is meaningless to the second meaning.

And why use the phrase "this deeper meaning"? This is a concept which hasn't been introduced yet, and to say "this" deeper meaning seems to refer to something anyway.

--John Salerno

I have made some alterations. What do you think? --DamoHi 06:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think the concept itself even makes sense. I get what he's saying, but I think Dennett is struggling to actually find a point to it. ADK...I'll freeze your racket! 11:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Really? I think the point he is trying to make is very clear in the lecture, less clear in this article perhaps. He is really arguing that virtually all of so called 'sophisticated theology' is made up of statements that seem profound but are actually not. It makes people feel comfortable with their religious beliefs so long as they don't think about them too much. A way of keeping clergyman who have no illusions about the literal truths of stories in the bible remain within the church. The best theology according to Dennett therefore is made up of deepities because they are superficially satisfying and unlikely to provoke too much reflection. --DamoHi 22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The entire lecture was a bit "meh". I actually prefer Yudkowsky's "applause cue" thing, where profound but meaningless statements are used more as a signal for the audience to start clapping than to actually get a point across. That more widely applies too. ADK...I'll earn your rope! 01:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Paper shredder

The article states " the statement could be interpreted to mean the zygote is a human person; this is false".

This is an ideological assertion, but it is presented as a bald fact. The argument that follows, that a person can no more be a single cell than a paper shredder, is nothing but a blatant assertion mixed with a nonsensical non sequitur.— Unsigned, by: 75.118.51.238 / talk / contribs

[edit] Another example

Is the religious anti-homosexual meme that "God / The Bible did not say Adam and Steve" a deepity? I see this as trivially true (the Bible does not mention Adam and Steve) but also false on the other earth-shattering level that it is trying to imply (that anything or anyone not mentioned in the Bible does not or should not exist). The latter intended meaning would indeed be earth-shattering, as God also did not mention any of the people or things that exist in the world, including incidentally the people who repeat this meme. --Yisfidri (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support