Difference between revisions of "Deepity"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by Andistare (Talk) to last version by Human)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Deepity''' is a term coined by [[Daniel Dennett]] in his 2009 speech to the American Atheists Institution conference.  It refers to a statement that has (at least) two meanings; one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false, or meaningless with respect to this deeper meaning, but would be "earth-shattering" if true.   
+
'''Deepity''' is a term coined by [[Daniel Dennett]] in his 2009 speech to the American Atheists Institution conference.  It refers to a statement that has two meanings; one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false, or meaningless with respect to this deeper meaning.   
  
 
The example Dennett uses to illustrate a deepity is the phrase "love is just a word".  On one level the statement is perfectly true (i.e., love ''is'' a four letter word) but the deeper meaning of the phrase is false; love is many things - a feeling, an emotion, a condition and not simply a word.
 
The example Dennett uses to illustrate a deepity is the phrase "love is just a word".  On one level the statement is perfectly true (i.e., love ''is'' a four letter word) but the deeper meaning of the phrase is false; love is many things - a feeling, an emotion, a condition and not simply a word.
 
==Examples==
 
 
* You learn about nothing from philosophy
 
 
The first reading is that the study of philosophy can teach about the concept of nothingness, which is true, but trivial.
 
The second interpretation, which is implicit, is that philosophy is useless i.e. "You learn nothing by studying philosophy". This second sense would have profound implications if true.
 
 
* Good without God becomes "o"
 
 
This is a deepity constructed from a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction Use/Mention error] combined with a confusion of the letter "o" with the number 0 which are both represented by similar symbols.
 
In the first reading, we have the trivial but true statement that the word "Good" without the three letters "God" becomes the letter "o".
 
The second reading, in which we consider the meanings of the words, implies that any good that is done without God is worth nothing/zero, which is false but plays on your acceptance of the evident truth of the trivial first sense to misdirect or confuse.  If taken to be true, the second reading would have important implications.
 
 
* The theory of Gravity is only a theory
 
 
In the first reading, the meaning is that the "theory of Gravity" is a "theory" which is true, but trivial.  This usage assumes the scientific sense of the word "theory" as a well-established scientific explanation.
 
However, since there is another sense of "theory" as a word which means a hypothesis or an unsubstantiated guess, this is exploited by the second reading which brings to mind the idea that objects will no longer feel the gravitational force since gravity is not a real phenomena, just an abstract idea.
 
  
 
==Extension to theology==
 
==Extension to theology==

Revision as of 22:31, 21 September 2010

Deepity is a term coined by Daniel Dennett in his 2009 speech to the American Atheists Institution conference. It refers to a statement that has two meanings; one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false, or meaningless with respect to this deeper meaning.

The example Dennett uses to illustrate a deepity is the phrase "love is just a word". On one level the statement is perfectly true (i.e., love is a four letter word) but the deeper meaning of the phrase is false; love is many things - a feeling, an emotion, a condition and not simply a word.

Extension to theology

As well as a criticism of bad prose and poetry,[1] the term "deepity" can refer to many religious sentiments and some of the more meaningless rhetoric. Dennett argues that theology is full of deepities, and noting that the sophisticated theological statement "God is no being at all" is equivalent to "no being at all is God". Other deepities he refers to are "God is Being itself" and "God is the God beyond God".

The concept is not without its critics, however. Most seem to believe that Dennet is attacking the right of people to use metaphorical language. Other critics point out that the universe and physics already exhibit "deepities" and that doesn't bother pesky atheists, so they shouldn't whine about religions using them.[2]

External links

You can watch the whole speech here.

Footnotes