frameworks
Psychological research shows that experts in fields “chunk information”. A child might see \(2+2=4\) and look at the 2, the +, etc. as different units. An adult would see \(2+2\) as an entire chunk that just easily maps to 4. A large part of learning is just being able to form these chunks, having a few simple chunks in our head allows us to form more complex chunks, and so on.
Hell, each sentence here is its own chunk in your head, this allows you to read quickly without expending a ton of mental energy. (on reread, this kind of reminds me of gestalt theory of perception)
I’ve often wondered what the point of learning formalized philosophy is. You can have entirely valid thoughts that approximate Utilitarianism without ever actually using the word. Philosophy is one of the few things that can actually be done alone, with an armchair. (Obviously you won’t get far, but I mean, you can).
Thing is, words like Utilitarianism are the chunks that I was referring to earlier. You can think about morality all you want, but until you have some conception of Utilitarianism as a monolithic entity (by that name or any other), you’ll be hard pressed to form more complex thoughts or play with the idea easily. I mean, there’s nothing logically stopping you, but it certainly makes it easier. This is the benefit of formalized disciplines: The complex jargon isn’t actually necessary, but it makes communication and thought itself so much simpler.
This is very related to my note on lenses
