Was this directed at me, particularly? I fully agree with your reasons. I am a big fan of your scholarship. Not a fan of your lists of sexy scientists, but, HEY! ‘De gustibus …’ and all that. And by local standards, I almost qualify as a fan of analytic philosophy.
I don’t deny teasing you about unnecessarily name-dropping Bentham, but the name dropping wasn’t my point. My point was that by mentioning Bentham you tempted me to quibble in a non-productive way. I wasn’t saying that you were distracted by something shiny. I was saying that, in this one particular case, your scholarship was a shiny distraction to me.
Keep up the good work, Luke. I think you set a record on speed at getting to 10,000 karma points. You received all those upvotes because people here appreciate what you are doing. Hell, you probably received 1000 karma just on this post and comments. But, if you have to have 1000 points plus a ‘thank you’ from Eliezer, then … I think I probably feel sorry for your girl friend.
ETA: Whoops. Forgot which post we are on. It was your previous posting “Less Wrong Rationality and Mainstream Philosophy” which gained you 1000 points but no “thank you” from the big guy.
It wasn’t particularly addressed to you, but I figured it was most relevant to your comment. Thanks for your clarifications and compliments.
I’m not anticipating a ‘thank you’ from Eliezer for my bringing genuinely useful things from mainstream philosophy to the attention of Less Wrong, no. But that won’t stop me from continuing to do so. :)
For the benefit of those who don’t click the ‘lists of sexy scientists’ link above: That was taken down quite a while ago when I had a change of opinion about the matter.
Was this directed at me, particularly? I fully agree with your reasons. I am a big fan of your scholarship. Not a fan of your lists of sexy scientists, but, HEY! ‘De gustibus …’ and all that. And by local standards, I almost qualify as a fan of analytic philosophy.
I don’t deny teasing you about unnecessarily name-dropping Bentham, but the name dropping wasn’t my point. My point was that by mentioning Bentham you tempted me to quibble in a non-productive way. I wasn’t saying that you were distracted by something shiny. I was saying that, in this one particular case, your scholarship was a shiny distraction to me.
Keep up the good work, Luke. I think you set a record on speed at getting to 10,000 karma points. You received all those upvotes because people here appreciate what you are doing. Hell, you probably received 1000 karma just on this post and comments. But, if you have to have 1000 points plus a ‘thank you’ from Eliezer, then … I think I probably feel sorry for your girl friend.
ETA: Whoops. Forgot which post we are on. It was your previous posting “Less Wrong Rationality and Mainstream Philosophy” which gained you 1000 points but no “thank you” from the big guy.
It wasn’t particularly addressed to you, but I figured it was most relevant to your comment. Thanks for your clarifications and compliments.
I’m not anticipating a ‘thank you’ from Eliezer for my bringing genuinely useful things from mainstream philosophy to the attention of Less Wrong, no. But that won’t stop me from continuing to do so. :)
For the benefit of those who don’t click the ‘lists of sexy scientists’ link above: That was taken down quite a while ago when I had a change of opinion about the matter.