Philosophy according to JoB: objective 3
I started here with an overview of the objectives. I continued here with the second one dedicated to our prior art. It is now time to finish this with the third and final objective which, when reached, will ensure a common context (foundation) for the real work we’d like to do later on.
This is what we said before about this objective:
3. Acquire the ability to integrate the prior art with the goals
Now this was probably not the most fortunate way of putting it. Acquiring an ability is an activity. Unless we believe all of the nonsense of brain scientists, there is no way of monitoring whether such a process takes place let alone whether it takes place successfully. To put it more directly: we can all think we are acquiring all kinds of abilities whilst we are just acquiring the ability of procrastination combined with that of complacency. The flip side of this is that anybody can attest to anybody else of us ‘doing our best’ or ‘putting in a lot of work’ but whilst all of that may have ‘merit’, neither has a direct link with that ability we want acquired.
So the better formulation would have been ‘to demonstrate the acquisition of the ability to integrate the prior art with the goals’ (even if it sounds horrible, as a sentence). How to demonstrate this? Via language of course. In our case specifically by using language to demonstrate we can create original links between the 8 philosophers reviewed and the conjecture of progress being the nature of language.
Below the fold you will find the concrete steps to do this in this community. Your contribution could well demonstrate in concrete fact an example of progress by language. In fact, that is the third objective.
Step 1: go to this place to demonstrate you cleared the first two objectives (this ensures our common context), register & select ‘communities’, click on the ‘Philosophy according to JoB’ community and subscribe to it, then start your learning & your proving)
[The place linked to above is an experimental community learning platform. I cannot guarantee it is on-line when you’re reading this which is why all assets (except the questions) are available via wordpress and google+ directly.]
Step 2: If you have questions on any of this (or on the questions in the learning platform), please become a member of the dedicated google+ community for our activity and start discussing whatever you think is relevant.
Step 3: Once you have cleared the first two objectives, get going on the third one. Write on the google+ community your, small, essay linking the material covered in the first 2 objectives to the conjecture that progress is the nature of language. This will make you vulnerable, I know, but rest assured that we’ll mercilessly kick out anybody (whether right or wrong) who refuses to apply the Principle of Charity to your contribution (as we will kick out anybody who evidently hasn’t done what needed to be done with respect to the first 2 objectives). After submitting this essay, the community will grade it, &, if OK, you will get a code with which to complete your progress in the community learning platform. Completing this will enable you to take with us the next part of the journey of exploring (more and more actively) our conjecture.
What is the expectation for the essay? Well, maybe this can serve as an example, as it links Rawls’ ideas with progress and D. Hume (and for those into weirdness: with G. Roddenberry: Yes!, the one of Star Trek.). Obviously you don’t need to be so long. Preferably you don’t copy my verbosity (inside joke: bervosity?). Preferably as well you’ll engage more directly with ‘Progress is the nature of language’. Still, the example is a good one in the sense that it shows our expectations aren’t very determined up front i.e. you can link to other philosophers and, in fact, non-philosophers and you needn’t worry on style and getting your factoids right. This is there with the intention to ensure a first step of co-operation (maybe do keep the Gricean maxims in mind!), not to claim perfection nor correctness nor some such other typically idiot notion.
PS: Also, consider it a warning that Hume is lurking around the corner. He wasn’t part of the foundation because the thing could well have collapsed under the prejudices surrounding his thought. Finally, consider yourselves warned that people like Malthus and Roddenberry will be taken seriously in this specific endeavor.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.