New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Woah.
in reply to a message by RoxStar
Your earthy sense of humor is usually hilarious, and even anti-intellectualism can be an interesting point of view, but here I think you're just being anti-intellectuals ... "some circles"?
Maybe your response is a misdirected reaction to the way CKE embarrassed Georgia in a rather (IMO) snide and sanctimonious tone. *nod* But without much rethinking, I believe you can see your own analysis is the overwrought one. An "overanalysis" of my own -
Only two facts are available:
1. a child named ZamZam
2. a Biblical place name of significance in some religion, ZamZam
CKE conclusion (no added assumptions): child is most likely named for place. This isn't overanalysis or finding significance where none exists, it's perfect effing logic, using the principle of parsimony (Always tentatively accept the conclusion that requires the fewest assumptions).
Projecting your own assumptions onto the unknown child's situation, you are "doubtful that parents knew or cared about name's significance."
Non-factual and irrelevant assumptions, judgments, biases you added to the mix to draw your conclusion (this is why I say you are the one "overanalyzing" if anyone is):
1 "based on [my personal] experience and knowledge of human nature"
2 "chances are the parents do not know the name of the well in the Bible"
3 "I didn't know its name"
4 "ZamZam sounds [to me] like a child's nickname"
I understand that you have seen a lot of crap naming, and I appreciate your sense of humor about it very much. However, in some circles there is a tendency sometimes to project one's own limited experience onto the whole world, and to find meaninglessness and alienation where significance may possibly exist for someone else. Sometimes, a Biblical reference is just a Biblical reference ... even if it's one you've never heard of that sounds dumb to you.
- mirfak the pedantic, in a self-consciously snide and sanctimonious tone
Maybe your response is a misdirected reaction to the way CKE embarrassed Georgia in a rather (IMO) snide and sanctimonious tone. *nod* But without much rethinking, I believe you can see your own analysis is the overwrought one. An "overanalysis" of my own -
Only two facts are available:
1. a child named ZamZam
2. a Biblical place name of significance in some religion, ZamZam
CKE conclusion (no added assumptions): child is most likely named for place. This isn't overanalysis or finding significance where none exists, it's perfect effing logic, using the principle of parsimony (Always tentatively accept the conclusion that requires the fewest assumptions).
Projecting your own assumptions onto the unknown child's situation, you are "doubtful that parents knew or cared about name's significance."
Non-factual and irrelevant assumptions, judgments, biases you added to the mix to draw your conclusion (this is why I say you are the one "overanalyzing" if anyone is):
1 "based on [my personal] experience and knowledge of human nature"
2 "chances are the parents do not know the name of the well in the Bible"
3 "I didn't know its name"
4 "ZamZam sounds [to me] like a child's nickname"
I understand that you have seen a lot of crap naming, and I appreciate your sense of humor about it very much. However, in some circles there is a tendency sometimes to project one's own limited experience onto the whole world, and to find meaninglessness and alienation where significance may possibly exist for someone else. Sometimes, a Biblical reference is just a Biblical reference ... even if it's one you've never heard of that sounds dumb to you.
- mirfak the pedantic, in a self-consciously snide and sanctimonious tone
This message was edited 5/27/2007, 6:55 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1