|
splifyphus posted:There are theological/metaphysical assumptions built into the structures of languages due to their historically contingent genesis and the 20c positivist project to construct a language without said assumptions failed utterly. Two immediate corollaries: nothing worth saying can be said in 'plain language' (which is why nobody worth reading is gonna be easy) and you must ruthlessly always be dissecting said 'plain language' if you want to have even a tiny chance of one day experiencing a thought you might call your own. The alternative is much easier and you're already there - a lifetime of submission to unquestioned assumptions invented by priests and technocrats. The bolded part strikes me as incredibly dumb, could you elaborate?
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the basic point is not wrong - plain language evolves and can distort the often-technical meaning of a text. philosophical jargon is like all other jargon - you wouldn't expect a biologist to stop talking about alleles because it's not plain language Yeah, but the assertion that anybody readable isn't really worth reading leaves out, say, Plato. I can't see how he could possibly be serious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Plato may be readable but if anything that often makes his real meaning harder to grasp. See, for instance, the all too common tendency even among people who read it in university to assume that The Republic is a book about designing a government rather than an extended metaphor for human nature. Ehhh, I seriously doubt that his real meaning would be easier to grasp if he wrote like a German.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 19:03
|
|