hey keith. i was the one who wrote that response raymi posted. i was coming to the defense of me, first and foremost.
no harm no foul, it's just a subject with which i happened to have an opinion i wanted to share. had i your email address, i would have sent it to you directly.
nothing wrong with your emails being posted, they weren't too personal and what you had to say was interesting (i thought). so i responded.
Stop using words like "dialectic." There are simpler words that serve the same function. It only makes you look pretentious.
I don't say that as someone who looks down on philosophy or anything like that. Plenty of really smart people agree that words like "dialectic" are pointless. Noam Chomsky even admitted that he could never figure out what the word meant.
i used dialectic because it is more specific than simpler words that can serve a "similar" function, not "the same function"
i am not upset by the fact that you think you are in a position to give me advice... but i think i am okay using the word "dialectic" i happen to know what it means and why i used it.
this is dictionary.com's version in case you are unclear...they do a pretty good job
di·a·lec·tic (d-lktk) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "dialectic" [P] n.
1. The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments. 2. 1. The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis. 2. Hegel's critical method for the investigation of this process. 3. 1. The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb. 2. The Marxian critique of this process. 4. dialectics (used with a sing. verb) A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions. 5. The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.
and since when is Noam Chomsky so great. who the fuck cares about the philosophy of language. (sarcasm) FLN recursion doesn't make someone look pretentious?
I looked at the definition of "dialectic" and I could think of a simpler, easier to understand word for each definition.
Even if it was a perfect word that YOU happen to understand, you still have to be aware of your audience. You have to talk to them using language they understand. That doesn't mean dumbing down your point -- just the words you're using to make your point.
Raymi is obviously intelligent, but I don't think reading Hegel is her thing (not mine either), so why would you use a word that she may not be familiar with unless you're just showing off in order to impress her?
"i have no reason to assume that seemingly intelligent people would not know what dialectic means.
i am a philosophy major the word dialectic gets thrown around casually. it was just within my comfortable speech pattern.
it's not about showing off."
Dude, pleny of really smart people have never heard of the word "dialectic." Plenty of smart people have never even read philosophy. But they've read other things -- things you might not have read or understood. We all have knowlege in some areas, ignorance in others.
Start looking at all the things you don't know that other people DO know. Maybe that will make you more humble. It won't take away your insecurity, though.
And I don't see what having the word being in your comfortable speech pattern has to do with anything. I say "motherfucker" all the time, but not when I'm around children. I talk about sex with my friends, but not with my grandma. We always adjust our speech depending on our audience.
i am not sure what makes you think that i am full of myself. i am well aware that my insecurities will not go away... i know that other people know things that i don't know... but i still don't think it is unreasonable to use the word dialectic... it is not far off from the word dialogue, so people will know the general area of meaning... and someone might look it up and expand their vocabulary... my intentions are not overly focused on making people think that i am intelligent or making them aware that i am familiar with philosophical material... i read the things that other people write so that i can become aware of perspectives i had never considered... the central focus of my life at this point is to take in as much material as i can because i recognize my lack of knowledge. i am not sure how you are making the leap from my using the world dialectic to me not being humble.
i don't think that using the word dialectic while speaking to someone that might not know what it means is the same as cursing in front of a child or talking about sex in front of my grandma. i have no reason to temper my speech pattern when using the word dialectic... other then the fact that the person i am speaking to might not know what it means... and that is not a good enough reason for me to use a less fitting word... i am not being vulgar... i am simply using a word that is not common. i am willing to admit that i might want to consider my audience a bit more... but using the word dialectic just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal...
i know that smart people are not always familiar with philosophical material... i don't expect them to be... it is actually refreshing to come across people that have a quick wit that don't digress into arguments from the perspective of pragmatism or other complex philosophical programs...
so, i am curious as to why you think i am full of myself?
it has to be more than the fact that i used the word dialectic...
anonymous is over their head. He assumes people are uneducated and don't "get" the big words. Speaking for myself, I find it refreshing that a human still can utilize the full spectrum of the English language. And, if someone doesn't understand a word, maybe that will encourage them to look it up! How lazy have we become?
i don't think we've become so much lazy as we've chosen to focus on different things rather than using the full spectrum of the english language.
that said, using whatever words you want is fine by me as long as you're not speaking over people's heads, right? no point in discussing things if the personw ith whom you are having whatever discourse it is doesn't understand you. and that doesn't make them lazy...
how do you know, or why do you believe it is over anyones head? It is absurd to assume something is over someone elses head. Who is he writing for? Whomever will read. If some folks don't get it, they will either ask questions or move on. Those that do get it will either continue to read or move on. There are so many different types of people and levels of education. His style of writing is filling a niche for someone who has been seeking it, I'm sure.
It is ridiculous that you think he needs to dumb down his writing...I truly don't understand your point of view.
where was all this disscusion when i actually wanted to keep a blog running?
i certainly see what anonymous is trying to say... i just don't understand why dialectic invoked the reaction... dialectic is not a word that requires a complex understanding of back-theory or anything like that. i am not a fan of pedantic assholes... and i don't think that i was being one...
i also enjoy it when people use the full spectrum of the english language... i suggest reading Joseph Conrad for an experience with concise and diverse use of the english language.
a.
not knowing certain words doesn't make people lazy but it does mean that they are uninformed... i would be happy if more people were reading and had better vocabularies... but that is a matter of opinion... as long as people are living actively and remaining engaged in some form of intellectual pursuit i don't have much to complain about... diversity in social interaction is responisble for all that i find interesting in experience and if most people thought like me then i would be shit out of luck...
so no... people are not lazy just because they haven't read a shit load of classic literature and whatever else one might do to expand their vocabulary... but they are uninformed, in some respect, and less capable of concise expression. so while they may be focusing their efforts elsewhere they are not maximizing their potential in the realm of communication. communication is crucial and a good handle on a good vocabulary makes for less ambiguity in expression...
not to be uptight about it... but from what i have read the average level of reading comprehension has been steadily decreasing over the past thirty years (i can't back that stat fully) and the culture, at least here in the united states, is bland and intellectually bankrupt (for the most part). so maybe we could all benefit from some more focused book-learning interest.
improvement of the education system... blah blah blah.
one more thing... in face-to-face interaction it is much easier to read whether someone understands where you are coming from and what level they are on as far as communication... here, on the internet, multiple people will be viewing the same thing... and i am always compelled to express what i am going to say in the most concise terms i am capable of... not really taking vocabulart levels into consideration... not to mention my vocabulary is not all that great... so this talk of me not being humble stemming from my pretentious word-choices is surprising.
Keith, I don't know you so it was wrong to do the whole pop psychology thing. My bad. As far as the "dialectic" thing, it's just a pet peeve of mine. Anyway, good luck to you, and I hope you didn't take offense.
I didn't say people were lazy for not reading literature. I said lazy in the context that if one does not understand something, figure it out. Research, look it up, buy a dictionary, be challenged. Don't be lazy.
yeah, i was commenting on a.'s response to you about laziness in regard to using the full-spectrum of language. so what you said may have been misinterpreted by a. not sure.
i am tempted to say that people don't care enough to look up the words that they don't know. it may not even be laziness. i don't know why that is...
22 comments:
hey keith. i was the one who wrote that response raymi posted. i was coming to the defense of me, first and foremost.
no harm no foul, it's just a subject with which i happened to have an opinion i wanted to share. had i your email address, i would have sent it to you directly.
nothing wrong with your emails being posted, they weren't too personal and what you had to say was interesting (i thought). so i responded.
cheers and don't hate the internet! ;P
you accomplished your goal and you don't realize it.
Stop using words like "dialectic." There are simpler words that serve the same function. It only makes you look pretentious.
I don't say that as someone who looks down on philosophy or anything like that. Plenty of really smart people agree that words like "dialectic" are pointless. Noam Chomsky even admitted that he could never figure out what the word meant.
i used dialectic because it is more specific than simpler words that can serve a "similar" function, not "the same function"
i am not upset by the fact that you think you are in a position to give me advice... but i think i am okay using the word "dialectic" i happen to know what it means and why i used it.
this is dictionary.com's version in case you are unclear...they do a pretty good job
di·a·lec·tic (d-lktk) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "dialectic" [P]
n.
1. The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.
2.
1. The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis.
2. Hegel's critical method for the investigation of this process.
3.
1. The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb.
2. The Marxian critique of this process.
4. dialectics (used with a sing. verb) A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions.
5. The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.
and since when is Noam Chomsky so great. who the fuck cares about the philosophy of language. (sarcasm) FLN recursion doesn't make someone look pretentious?
I looked at the definition of "dialectic" and I could think of a simpler, easier to understand word for each definition.
Even if it was a perfect word that YOU happen to understand, you still have to be aware of your audience. You have to talk to them using language they understand. That doesn't mean dumbing down your point -- just the words you're using to make your point.
Raymi is obviously intelligent, but I don't think reading Hegel is her thing (not mine either), so why would you use a word that she may not be familiar with unless you're just showing off in order to impress her?
i have no reason to assume that seemingly intelligent people would not know what dialectic means.
i am a philosophy major the word dialectic gets thrown around casually. it was just within my comfortable speech pattern.
it's not about showing off.
and fuck hegel... let's all zone-out while someone talks about ontology.
"i have no reason to assume that seemingly intelligent people would not know what dialectic means.
i am a philosophy major the word dialectic gets thrown around casually. it was just within my comfortable speech pattern.
it's not about showing off."
Dude, pleny of really smart people have never heard of the word "dialectic." Plenty of smart people have never even read philosophy. But they've read other things -- things you might not have read or understood. We all have knowlege in some areas, ignorance in others.
Start looking at all the things you don't know that other people DO know. Maybe that will make you more humble. It won't take away your insecurity, though.
And I don't see what having the word being in your comfortable speech pattern has to do with anything. I say "motherfucker" all the time, but not when I'm around children. I talk about sex with my friends, but not with my grandma. We always adjust our speech depending on our audience.
i am not sure what makes you think that i am full of myself. i am well aware that my insecurities will not go away... i know that other people know things that i don't know... but i still don't think it is unreasonable to use the word dialectic... it is not far off from the word dialogue, so people will know the general area of meaning... and someone might look it up and expand their vocabulary... my intentions are not overly focused on making people think that i am intelligent or making them aware that i am familiar with philosophical material... i read the things that other people write so that i can become aware of perspectives i had never considered... the central focus of my life at this point is to take in as much material as i can because i recognize my lack of knowledge. i am not sure how you are making the leap from my using the world dialectic to me not being humble.
i don't think that using the word dialectic while speaking to someone that might not know what it means is the same as cursing in front of a child or talking about sex in front of my grandma. i have no reason to temper my speech pattern when using the word dialectic... other then the fact that the person i am speaking to might not know what it means... and that is not a good enough reason for me to use a less fitting word... i am not being vulgar... i am simply using a word that is not common. i am willing to admit that i might want to consider my audience a bit more... but using the word dialectic just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal...
i know that smart people are not always familiar with philosophical material... i don't expect them to be... it is actually refreshing to come across people that have a quick wit that don't digress into arguments from the perspective of pragmatism or other complex philosophical programs...
so, i am curious as to why you think i am full of myself?
it has to be more than the fact that i used the word dialectic...
anonymous is over their head. He assumes people are uneducated and don't "get" the big words. Speaking for myself, I find it refreshing that a human still can utilize the full spectrum of the English language. And, if someone doesn't understand a word, maybe that will encourage them to look it up! How lazy have we become?
i don't think we've become so much lazy as we've chosen to focus on different things rather than using the full spectrum of the english language.
that said, using whatever words you want is fine by me as long as you're not speaking over people's heads, right? no point in discussing things if the personw ith whom you are having whatever discourse it is doesn't understand you. and that doesn't make them lazy...
how do you know, or why do you believe it is over anyones head? It is absurd to assume something is over someone elses head. Who is he writing for? Whomever will read. If some folks don't get it, they will either ask questions or move on. Those that do get it will either continue to read or move on. There are so many different types of people and levels of education. His style of writing is filling a niche for someone who has been seeking it, I'm sure.
It is ridiculous that you think he needs to dumb down his writing...I truly don't understand your point of view.
where was all this disscusion when i actually wanted to keep a blog running?
i certainly see what anonymous is trying to say... i just don't understand why dialectic invoked the reaction... dialectic is not a word that requires a complex understanding of back-theory or anything like that. i am not a fan of pedantic assholes... and i don't think that i was being one...
i also enjoy it when people use the full spectrum of the english language... i suggest reading Joseph Conrad for an experience with concise and diverse use of the english language.
a.
not knowing certain words doesn't make people lazy but it does mean that they are uninformed... i would be happy if more people were reading and had better vocabularies... but that is a matter of opinion... as long as people are living actively and remaining engaged in some form of intellectual pursuit i don't have much to complain about... diversity in social interaction is responisble for all that i find interesting in experience and if most people thought like me then i would be shit out of luck...
so no... people are not lazy just because they haven't read a shit load of classic literature and whatever else one might do to expand their vocabulary... but they are uninformed, in some respect, and less capable of concise expression. so while they may be focusing their efforts elsewhere they are not maximizing their potential in the realm of communication. communication is crucial and a good handle on a good vocabulary makes for less ambiguity in expression...
not to be uptight about it... but from what i have read the average level of reading comprehension has been steadily decreasing over the past thirty years (i can't back that stat fully) and the culture, at least here in the united states, is bland and intellectually bankrupt (for the most part). so maybe we could all benefit from some more focused book-learning interest.
improvement of the education system... blah blah blah.
one more thing... in face-to-face interaction it is much easier to read whether someone understands where you are coming from and what level they are on as far as communication... here, on the internet, multiple people will be viewing the same thing... and i am always compelled to express what i am going to say in the most concise terms i am capable of... not really taking vocabulart levels into consideration... not to mention my vocabulary is not all that great... so this talk of me not being humble stemming from my pretentious word-choices is surprising.
finally this is starting to get fun.
Keith, I don't know you so it was wrong to do the whole pop psychology thing. My bad. As far as the "dialectic" thing, it's just a pet peeve of mine. Anyway, good luck to you, and I hope you didn't take offense.
i did not take offense. it was just strange to receive a command.
"Stop using words like "dialectic.""
like i already said... i know what you are saying about talking above your audience... but i just don't think it applies here.
I didn't say people were lazy for not reading literature. I said lazy in the context that if one does not understand something, figure it out. Research, look it up, buy a dictionary, be challenged. Don't be lazy.
yeah, i was commenting on a.'s response to you about laziness in regard to using the full-spectrum of language. so what you said may have been misinterpreted by a. not sure.
i am tempted to say that people don't care enough to look up the words that they don't know. it may not even be laziness. i don't know why that is...
oh sweet sorrow... the buzz has died. back to my dirty love cave to carve out a life.
byebye :(
Don't stop, dude.
I signed into my 8 month old account to say: keep up the blogging.
Using "dialectic" is sophmoric, but who gives a shit? It's a fucking blog. Your audience is... you. Basically.
I'll tell you what I really liked about this blog.
1) I liked to wonder if those amature softcore porn pictures were of women you have fucked, or are fucking.
2) I liked that you rarely refered to the pictures in the post, raymi styles.
3) I liked the hardcore, black flag-type poetic philosophical musings. I appreciate that shit.
4) etc...
Travel Agency stuff. Devices, reviews, services...
Post a Comment