Thank you for your insight. The problem with this view of utility “just as a language” is that sometimes I feel that the conclusion of utility maximization are not “rational” and I cannot figure out why they should be indeed rational if the language is not saying anything that is meaningful to my intuition.
if the language is not saying anything that is meaningful to my intuition.
When you learn a new language, you eventually form new intuitions. If you stick to existing intuitions, you do not grow. Current intuition does not generalize to the utmost of your potential ability.
When I was toddler, I never proceeded to grow new concepts by rigorous construction; yet I ended up mostly knowing what was around me. Then, to go further, I employed abstract thought, and had to mold and hew my past intuitions. Some things I intuitively perceived, turned out likely false; hallucinations.
Later, when I was learning Serious Math, I forgot that learning does not work by a straight stream of logic and proofs, and instead demanded that what I was reading both match my intuitions, and be properly formal and justified. Quite the ask!
The problem with this view of utility “just as a language”
My opinion is that if you think the problem lays in seeing it as a language, a new lens to the world, because specifically of the new language not matching your present intuition, you are pointing at the wrong problem.
If instead you meant to prosaically plead for object-level explanations that would clarify, oh uhm sorry I don’t actually know, I’m an improvised teacher, I actually have no clue, byeeeeee
Thank you for your insight. The problem with this view of utility “just as a language” is that sometimes I feel that the conclusion of utility maximization are not “rational” and I cannot figure out why they should be indeed rational if the language is not saying anything that is meaningful to my intuition.
When you learn a new language, you eventually form new intuitions. If you stick to existing intuitions, you do not grow. Current intuition does not generalize to the utmost of your potential ability.
When I was toddler, I never proceeded to grow new concepts by rigorous construction; yet I ended up mostly knowing what was around me. Then, to go further, I employed abstract thought, and had to mold and hew my past intuitions. Some things I intuitively perceived, turned out likely false; hallucinations.
Later, when I was learning Serious Math, I forgot that learning does not work by a straight stream of logic and proofs, and instead demanded that what I was reading both match my intuitions, and be properly formal and justified. Quite the ask!
My opinion is that if you think the problem lays in seeing it as a language, a new lens to the world, because specifically of the new language not matching your present intuition, you are pointing at the wrong problem.
If instead you meant to prosaically plead for object-level explanations that would clarify, oh uhm sorry I don’t actually know, I’m an improvised teacher, I actually have no clue, byeeeeee