I know I posted before that I didn’t think I got that much out of the sequences. But now I’m studying philosophy and a lot of questions that I used to think were very challenging now are questions that I can answer. In particular, I manage to dissolve a lot of philosophical paradoxes or arguments much quicker than I used to be able to. This gives me more time to devote to my other subjects.
I also think that some of the rationality discussion has helped to improve some of my decisions, but it is very hard to pin point which.
In particular, I manage to dissolve a lot of philosophical paradoxes or arguments much quicker than I used to be able to.
Any particular approach you would like to cite there? I’ve found Peirce’s pragmatic maxim to be a good shorthand for a lot of that. “This is just word games with bad definitions.”
I know I posted before that I didn’t think I got that much out of the sequences. But now I’m studying philosophy and a lot of questions that I used to think were very challenging now are questions that I can answer. In particular, I manage to dissolve a lot of philosophical paradoxes or arguments much quicker than I used to be able to. This gives me more time to devote to my other subjects.
I also think that some of the rationality discussion has helped to improve some of my decisions, but it is very hard to pin point which.
Any particular approach you would like to cite there? I’ve found Peirce’s pragmatic maxim to be a good shorthand for a lot of that. “This is just word games with bad definitions.”
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map_is_not_the_territory is very important.
It’s also very helpful training to look at various paradoxes such as the Liar Paradox, The Unexpected Hanging Paradox, the Raven Paradox and so on.