I used to read discussions of the definition of science fiction until I came to the conclusion that there was no point.
Is it just that the ramifications of one definition vs. another have little impact that makes you believe there is no point? I mean, definitions of sf are not a pressing concern for humanity, but if sf aficionados enjoy a healthy debate about the finer points of that particular genre, I don’t deem it pointless. There are similar debates about whether or not Robinson Crusoe was truly the first example of what is known as a novel today.
I don’t know the origin in a given person for the impetus to care about something like the definition of sf. It could be emotional experiences at a young age, or at an old age. Whatever it is has to give them a feeling of being invested in the topic.
I’m more interested in the generalization of this to other concepts. Imagine if someone said, “I used to read discussions (of the origin of life) until I came to the conclusion that there was no point,” or “I used to read discussions (of concept-X-which-may-or-may-not-have-far-reaching-social-or-technological-consequences) until I came to the conclusion that there was no point.”
I don’t mean this as any sort of criticism at all. I probably would have the same reaction you do towards definitions of sf. I guess what I am asking is maybe we should be thinking about the dual of the question in your post. When can Concept-X be readily dismissed as inconsequential in its nuances, and what then to make of people who don’t brush off Concept-X?
Let’s say that I no longer think there’s any point in doing that for recreation. One of my friends has a definition of science fiction which is very different from mine, and it’s very hard for me to keep from arguing with him about it.
There are cases where these definitions are literally a matter of life and death. One of the hot issues in feminism is whether someone who’s male-to-female transgendered is really a woman. This affects policy in shelters from domestic violence.
This might be essence of mind-killer territory—even more so than practical politics. And I don’t think feminism is especially prone to it—national and religious identity play out the same way.
I just realized a few hours ago that what identities one is willing to attribute are part of one’s own identity.
Edited to add: And I bet that if “rationalist” becomes worth anything in the larger world, we’re going to be dealing with these issues.
Is it just that the ramifications of one definition vs. another have little impact that makes you believe there is no point? I mean, definitions of sf are not a pressing concern for humanity, but if sf aficionados enjoy a healthy debate about the finer points of that particular genre, I don’t deem it pointless. There are similar debates about whether or not Robinson Crusoe was truly the first example of what is known as a novel today.
I don’t know the origin in a given person for the impetus to care about something like the definition of sf. It could be emotional experiences at a young age, or at an old age. Whatever it is has to give them a feeling of being invested in the topic.
I’m more interested in the generalization of this to other concepts. Imagine if someone said, “I used to read discussions (of the origin of life) until I came to the conclusion that there was no point,” or “I used to read discussions (of concept-X-which-may-or-may-not-have-far-reaching-social-or-technological-consequences) until I came to the conclusion that there was no point.”
I don’t mean this as any sort of criticism at all. I probably would have the same reaction you do towards definitions of sf. I guess what I am asking is maybe we should be thinking about the dual of the question in your post. When can Concept-X be readily dismissed as inconsequential in its nuances, and what then to make of people who don’t brush off Concept-X?
It’s a fair question.
Let’s say that I no longer think there’s any point in doing that for recreation. One of my friends has a definition of science fiction which is very different from mine, and it’s very hard for me to keep from arguing with him about it.
There are cases where these definitions are literally a matter of life and death. One of the hot issues in feminism is whether someone who’s male-to-female transgendered is really a woman. This affects policy in shelters from domestic violence.
This might be essence of mind-killer territory—even more so than practical politics. And I don’t think feminism is especially prone to it—national and religious identity play out the same way.
I just realized a few hours ago that what identities one is willing to attribute are part of one’s own identity.
Edited to add: And I bet that if “rationalist” becomes worth anything in the larger world, we’re going to be dealing with these issues.