well, do you prefer for me to say "you think i failed it correctly?" i am willing to acknowledge that i apparently failed to interpret it correctly rather than maybe i did interpret it correctly you just think i didnt. or are you saying i should drop the apparently?
well, the whole point is they are ascribing fault to me. i can acknowledge i failed to interpret it correctly. but in my defense, it seems from my perspective that you didnt explain it correctly. it doesn't really matter whose "fault" it is, but i asked for an example and didnt understand the one that was given.
they shared their perspective and i shared mine. yes i suppose i do talk with the bias that i am right even when i am less informed.
He asked why you're considering worth. Then you rephrased it as value loss. Then he points out you're still considering worth and just using different words. How do you not understand this flow of events?
sorry. im not getting it. whats there to chew on? that i objectively failed to interpret it correctly is a concession. did i word it in an offensive way?
Yeah, intuition at-large and common-sense. Though, you have a point that intuition is something that develops as you gain experience with the field. So doing things based on intuition makes sense when you're very familiar with the field and is super helpful a lot of the time, but I think common-sense refers to something more static, something that doesn't develop over time for an individual. It's more of a societally defined thing
it's the actual intellectual arrogance and habits associated with it that lead you to prematurely form stances and overestimate the degree to which you understand things
I think the follow-on is that, no matter your experience with the field any time you encounter a new concept it can be very counter-intuitive. That's especially true in math. Every new mathematical structure you learn about is just completely unintuitive based on prior knowledge
I'm relatively certain kanye was by far the smartest person that posted on NADotA. Maybe broodstar, but he didn't express it as outwardly. I got the sense of it a lot from our PMs
it seems to me i didnt consider there might be any reasonable systems of morality that arent isomorphic to “worth”. but maybe the point was that there are reasonable systems of morality that arent characterized by the worthish analysis.
No fucking shit, that's what the point of his question was. But you fucking just rephrased worth as value. You used the exact same moral framework and didn't ask the question