While I think the benefits of meditation are a fine topic to discuss, I don’t think this post not covering that is a problem with this post, and forcing the author to justify themselves on this dimension seems like a weirdly strong requirement to me.
Oh, no, that’s totally fair. However if that’s the case then I would prefer a disclaimer to that effect be added to the post (like, “I assume here that meditating is beneficial; discussing whether that’s true is beyond the scope of this post”). (And, if in addition to that, there was at least, like, a link to something explaining what the benefits are, or a sentence alluding to what sort of benefits are being assumed, then that would be super helpful!)
Quite simply, because it seems to me very much like an equivocation is taking place, on the meaning of ‘focus’.
Consider:
After a few weeks of this exercise, it will feel like you’ve built a new muscle in your head, one which allows you to turn away from your inner thoughts at will. Let’s call it focus.
Isn’t this a strange thing to say? Why would we call this thing ‘focus’? The word ‘focus’ already has a common usage, one with which we’re all familiar. And now we’re being asked to refer to a brand-new concept by the term?
So, at best, this is an unfortunate word usage. In such a case, what we have is one word, ‘focus’, that has gained an additional referent (if we were writing a dictionary, we’d need to include one more entry for the meaning of ‘focus’ than before). This new ‘focus’ has basically nothing to do with the thing that most people refer to by the commonplace word ‘focus’ (much like a point of a conic at which rays reflected from a curve or surface converge is one thing, and the concentration of attention is another thing, and the indicator of the currently active element in a user interface is a third thing [wiktionary]).
In this case, “the ability to focus” has no obvious value. The claim that it has some value has to be made explicitly, and defended on its own merits. Since this ‘focus’ is a totally new phenomenon, which we’re encountering for the first time, and which is not identical to any of the things which we have previously referred to by the word ‘focus’, we have no particular reason to expect that being able to do this new ‘focusing’ thing is good, or bad, or anything.
But there’s another possibility: that the choice of the word ‘focus’ is deliberate, and is meant, essentially, to serve as a motte-and-bailey. The motte, of course, is just the quoted part of the OP—the claim that “here is a new thing; we’ll call it, oh, let’s say ‘focus’, why not”. The bailey—unstated, but implied (and implied clearly enough that you, for instance, got exactly this meaning from the post)—is that this new thing that we’ve decided to call ‘focus’ is actually the same thing as one of the other things that we have previously called ‘focus’ (and it’s obvious which referent of the word we’re meant to identify this new phenomenon with—it’s not the one about the conic sections, that’s for sure!).
And if that is the implied meaning… then I call shenanigans. If the OP wishes to make the claim that this “new muscle in your head, one which allows you to turn away from your inner thoughts at will” is in fact the same sort of ‘focus’ as the one that lets me (for instance) write a term paper for 6 hours straight without getting distracted by Reddit, or play certain sorts of concentration-requiring games more effectively, or more easily spot mistakes when editing a short story, or do any of the other things that are improved by that which we commonly refer to as ‘focus’—then let him make that claim explicitly. (And it would be one heck of a claim! Huge, as they say, if true.)
Alas, looks like I didn’t edit my comment fast enough. After rereading I wasn’t actually sure anymore whether the post was trying to argue for the benefits of meditation, so I think in this case your comment seems justified.
He does give a paragraph to the benefits, though I am not sure whether the goal of this post is to convince the reader of the benefits of meditation, or whether it’s for people who do think that meditation is valuable and are interested in getting into it. The single paragraph is:
After a few weeks of this exercise, it will feel like you’ve built a new muscle in your head, one which allows you to turn away from your inner thoughts at will. Let’s call it focus.
If the goal is not to convince the reader of the benefits, then sure, fair enough; but as far as the bit you quoted goes—that’s not a benefit. It’s a result, but what is not clear to me is what good that result does. (Analogy: “What is the purpose of what you’re doing right now?” “I’m making a widget.” “What for?” “To have a widget.” This is obviously an unhelpful response, right? We’d like to know what the widget is good for—what would motivate someone to make one. And just so, in this case.)
Edit: Nvm.
Oh, no, that’s totally fair. However if that’s the case then I would prefer a disclaimer to that effect be added to the post (like, “I assume here that meditating is beneficial; discussing whether that’s true is beyond the scope of this post”). (And, if in addition to that, there was at least, like, a link to something explaining what the benefits are, or a sentence alluding to what sort of benefits are being assumed, then that would be super helpful!)
I’m still confused about how “the ability to focus” doesn’t count as a benefit, or is a particularly confusing one.
Quite simply, because it seems to me very much like an equivocation is taking place, on the meaning of ‘focus’.
Consider:
Isn’t this a strange thing to say? Why would we call this thing ‘focus’? The word ‘focus’ already has a common usage, one with which we’re all familiar. And now we’re being asked to refer to a brand-new concept by the term?
So, at best, this is an unfortunate word usage. In such a case, what we have is one word, ‘focus’, that has gained an additional referent (if we were writing a dictionary, we’d need to include one more entry for the meaning of ‘focus’ than before). This new ‘focus’ has basically nothing to do with the thing that most people refer to by the commonplace word ‘focus’ (much like a point of a conic at which rays reflected from a curve or surface converge is one thing, and the concentration of attention is another thing, and the indicator of the currently active element in a user interface is a third thing [wiktionary]).
In this case, “the ability to focus” has no obvious value. The claim that it has some value has to be made explicitly, and defended on its own merits. Since this ‘focus’ is a totally new phenomenon, which we’re encountering for the first time, and which is not identical to any of the things which we have previously referred to by the word ‘focus’, we have no particular reason to expect that being able to do this new ‘focusing’ thing is good, or bad, or anything.
But there’s another possibility: that the choice of the word ‘focus’ is deliberate, and is meant, essentially, to serve as a motte-and-bailey. The motte, of course, is just the quoted part of the OP—the claim that “here is a new thing; we’ll call it, oh, let’s say ‘focus’, why not”. The bailey—unstated, but implied (and implied clearly enough that you, for instance, got exactly this meaning from the post)—is that this new thing that we’ve decided to call ‘focus’ is actually the same thing as one of the other things that we have previously called ‘focus’ (and it’s obvious which referent of the word we’re meant to identify this new phenomenon with—it’s not the one about the conic sections, that’s for sure!).
And if that is the implied meaning… then I call shenanigans. If the OP wishes to make the claim that this “new muscle in your head, one which allows you to turn away from your inner thoughts at will” is in fact the same sort of ‘focus’ as the one that lets me (for instance) write a term paper for 6 hours straight without getting distracted by Reddit, or play certain sorts of concentration-requiring games more effectively, or more easily spot mistakes when editing a short story, or do any of the other things that are improved by that which we commonly refer to as ‘focus’—then let him make that claim explicitly. (And it would be one heck of a claim! Huge, as they say, if true.)
Alas, looks like I didn’t edit my comment fast enough. After rereading I wasn’t actually sure anymore whether the post was trying to argue for the benefits of meditation, so I think in this case your comment seems justified.
He does give a paragraph to the benefits, though I am not sure whether the goal of this post is to convince the reader of the benefits of meditation, or whether it’s for people who do think that meditation is valuable and are interested in getting into it. The single paragraph is:
If the goal is not to convince the reader of the benefits, then sure, fair enough; but as far as the bit you quoted goes—that’s not a benefit. It’s a result, but what is not clear to me is what good that result does. (Analogy: “What is the purpose of what you’re doing right now?” “I’m making a widget.” “What for?” “To have a widget.” This is obviously an unhelpful response, right? We’d like to know what the widget is good for—what would motivate someone to make one. And just so, in this case.)