Diverse resources (that should blend together at some point)
Validity of analogical thinking
- Proleptic syllogism
- Analogy, intersection, and inference
- Abuse of analogical thinking instilling a methodological divide in Philosophy?
- liberal object creation: pervasive?(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3QDMkMGmQ&feature=youtu.be + http://writing.upenn.edu/epc/authors/goldsmith/works/stein.pdf)
- “Let’s formalize this notion”: when, why, how
- Discourse by analogies: is it all BS but less so when the isomorphisms are richer? Are we then claiming that an underlying “natural” pattern is more likely as the structures we uncover/infer become more intricately paralleled?
Intention (its relevance in more practical matters, as opposed to as a mental state)
- Pretense: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-021-09745-y
- Congruence as a signal of intent e.g. US “equity, freedom, opportunity” Locally =/= globally
- Goodhart’s Law: we cannot escape intention (no free lunch, social engineers)
- The Logic of The Like https://thepointmag.com/examined-life/the-logic-of-the-like/
- When they are in-confessable (e.g. “yeah, I am are ultimately doing it to become more powerful, but I am doing so in a way that helps society. Vote for me!”; “yeah, I’m doing it primarily driven by the desire to win and feel superior to the rest, but in competing I am bringing the best of my abilities and putting them to work, which ultimately benefits society! I’m saying this out loud!”). [See Bourdieu.] The cynical recognize it in themselves that it’s all about this power struggle and (likely correctly) extrapolate this to The Other (on what grounds (isomorphisms)? TBE). Those are the ones really in the fight for power. The idealists are in denial — condemned to lose in this kind of battle because that denial opens significant vulnerabilities they are not even aware of (e.g. they cannot shield themselves against the most brutal attacks from the cynic: debunking).
- Relationship between the in-confessable and the ineffable.
- Can we assert “ill/fake intentions eventually backfire” What would the mechanism be?
- More generally, unconscious statistical inference (intentions, music). What’s up with that (method)?
- Lack/suspense of explicit intention: Act towards X without intention to X (a conscious effort to evade, flow). Leads to a different outcome.