Dasein, as constituted by disclosedness, is essentially in the truth. Disclosedness is a kind of Being which is essential to Dasein. There is truth only in so far as Dasein is and so long as Dasein is. Entities are uncovered only when Dasein is and only as long as Dasein is, are they disclosed. Using big words, Using technical terms, any thing whatsoever--these are true as long as Dasein is. For in such a case truth as disclosedness, uncovering, and uncoveredness, cannot be. Before big words were used, they were not 'true'; it does not follow that they were false, or even that they would become false if ontically no discoveredness were any longer possible. Just as little does this 'restriction' imply that the Being-true of 'truths' has in any way been diminished.

Get it?

No! I thought you might use smaller words to explain why you use big words

I use bigger words when I talk at work. I need to use words like palivizumab, appendicolith, nystagmus, macroglobulinemia, hyperaldosteronism, encephalomalacia, osteophytes, and hypothalamohypophyseal.

I have a sort word you may understand--ban. Sounds like a nice solution to your problem of big words.

Wow, are you like an Einstein kinda guy or something. So you'd know how to cure cancer maybe???? Or is there a cure yet?

It's just my job. Everyone in medicine knows these words.

Cancer is not one disease. It's hundreds of different diseases that all have some common biological features. Some are curable, some aren't. I'm not a cancer specialist, though I treat a lot of infections in cancer patients. AIDS is one of my specialties, though, and there is no cure for that.

Not nice. Give our young friend here a break and engage him in a discussion that's useful for him, please.

Big words means big ideas in fewer words. When big ideas are strung together under one word, and you understand the big words, you can take much more complicated ideas that would need 200 small words per sentence and avoid overloading the mind by forcing it to hold somthing too bulky. The brain can only handle so many words strung together to make an idea, exceed that limit and information gets jumbled/lost. For instance, try to read the 200 word sentences in the U.S. tax code. Then you can complain about useless jargon.

See, I could write that paragraph. or simply:
Etymologic progression by necessity due to biological/nuerological limitations impedeing communication in cases of sentences of great length. Just look at the U.S. tax code if you want to see obscurantism explicity.

Big words have their usefulness.

This is a friendly forum. If someone uses a word you do not understand, google the word. If you're still unsure about the word, just ask. We're all here to learn, and learning new vocabulary is part of that learning.

Sorry. I read numerous posts in a row that seemed an attempt to being retarded rather than naive. The 'reading is a waste of time' post is a dead give away.

Sorry socrato. Learn big words otherwise their is no hope for you. Without a strong understanding of vocabulary good luck getting by in this world. If you do not understand "big words" pick up the dictionary. They are online for your learning pleasure.

Theaeteus - everyone has to learn those words at some point. There was a time when you and I had less colorful vocabularies. Give the guy a break.

I think that he might just be a bit insecure on the forum and doesn't quite know how to react. Its not really a big deal.

Socrato,

You have come to a strange land in coming here and decided to call the inhabitants foreigners. Your young and do not have a large vocabulary, look at this as an opportunity to expand what you can know about the world. If you do not expand your vobabulary there will be limited social situtations that you will be comfortable in in the future. You have hit upon a wonderful resource to widen your understanding in general, take advantage of it, you have a lot of well meaning people here who are trying to make you see the light, and they have your best interest in mind.

Socrato's first word is: Why? Part of the answer has to do with a repugnance of the crowd, the mass, the "they" which is constitutive of the psychology of a considerable number of those who go by the name of "philosophers". My suspicion is that this is less a product of philosophy than a cause of its attraction for them (philosophy being a minority sport - a very minority sport) and a sport played on a field from which it is possible, if you are so inclined, to look down on a hell of a lot of people.

There is another factor which has come into play at least over the last 100 years or so (Nietzsche was probably one of the first): this is the idea that if an idea is easy to understand and any Tom, **** or Harry can grasp it, then it is almost certainly an idea of little worth. The really big ideas, the really significant ideas must be those that can only be understood with great effort - with a long initiation into the tradition and then with the difficult labour of piecing together just what the guy is saying.

There is also a third factor (predominant since WWII): a critique of the sort of rationality (an easy to understand rationality) that some argue lead directly to the concentration camps. Some authors feel that they are caught in a sort of performative contradiction if they use the easy to understand form of that rationality when they are presenting their critique of it. They want to insist that there must be another, way of reasoning - and they try to present that in the form of their works. Unfortunately, because the works end up being very difficult to read for the uninitiated they can actually feel quite authoritarian (which is odd because a common thread in the critiques is how authoritarian the sort of reasoning they are criticising is).

There is also a fourth factor: Almost everyone who is a professional philosopher would like to make a name for themselves, and you don't make a name for yourself by just using the simple terms that everyone is already familiar with. If they were pharmacists, they could invent a new drug, but they are not. Their medium is words, so they have to invent some new terms: "This is what I call Dasein. You call it human life but I call it Dasein and you are going to have to buy a very big and expensive book to find out why I want to call it this." The philosopher must carve out his or her niche, and how else but by words, new words, a new jargon.

Socrato,

You are not alone in your in your question of "why must we use big words." Zentetic hits the nail on the head when he says that "big words mean big ideas in fewer words." To a point you have to use those big words to explain those complex ideas, otherwise you get into an even more complex form of description. Most if not every word in the dictionary was at one time complex notions and ideas that ultimately became a single conceptual word. Look at the etymology (root of the word) of definition for example. Defintion comes from the latin Dei fini, which means "to make finite." The notion of "to make finite" ultimately stems from the Greek word horos meaning "land marker" which would "limit, or boundry." Now if I didn't use the big word defintion, I would instead be saying, "the limited, or boundary, or finiteness, or land marker of (x) is (x). But we say definition because it encapsulates those ideas.

So if you think about it, you use big words every day, you have just grown accustomed to the universal context. Big words from histology to pseudo ciliated squamous epithelium are familiar and essential to Aedes for example because he uses words like those in his profession. But could you imagine using an extrapolated version of pseudo ciliated squamous epithelium? It's even in cases like those that he may use Acronyms because even simplified definitions are too long, like the example "AIDS" instead of Auto Immune Deficiency syndrome. Zentetic would operate in that way with mathematics, Theaetetus with music, etc,etc,etc.

But that is where I think you, socrato, deliver your well placed point. Why can't people in general speak in a simplified way? It is either that these words are relatively comprehensive (as I explained previously), or people intentionally use difficult composition to convey their ideas to sound profound. There is a saying that, "stupid people use big words to make themselves sound smart." This is sometimes true. There have been more than a few times I have encountered people on the forum who have used big words for the sake of using big words, and in the process lose all cogency in their argument. So I agree with your sentiments in some respects.

Big words usage for the sake of big word usage is one thing, but specific word choices to convey exact meaning are very important for effective communication. I find it funny that many people use big words that they obviously do not understand the meanings the words convey. Considering that online dictionaries are readily available it shows a sign of laziness throwing around big words for the wrong contexts.

Now the problem arises that when vocabulary is simplified and reduced meaning and context become increasingly vague and thus it is more difficult specific concepts. This in turn drags out word counts and then also inflates sentences until they are a bunch of gobbledygook.

Including on this site. Readability is much more impressive than vocabulary. To make something readable shows prowess with communication. To use big words just shows memorization.

I may be wrong, but I think Socrato is young, and he may not have encountered this situation before. It sounds like he's heard some things about philosophy in church and he hit the internet to learn more about it. This site may not be his cup of tea, but maybe he'll at least learn to use the net to his advantage -- when most of us were growing up we didn't have resources like this at our fingertips.

I would like to point out that Socrato is not alone in his 'quest' for simplification of the used language and that, on top of that, there are many philosophers who point towards simplicity as a way of relaying information or a way to gain a clear understanding.

Don't get me wrong, I use big words whenever I feel like it. As mentioned above it is saying a lot in few words. It saves time and effort, just not at first...as with all language skills. A philosopher who strove for simplicity in his work was Descartes, he selected his audience by writing in Latin, but he isn't one for big words. It was his believe that a clear understanding could be gained by 'disecting' difficult ideas into a number of seperate simple ideas. Spinoza thought that as well. If you'd read his Ethica you would find that he, by five clear axioms, he comes to the most complicated ideas, amor dei intellectualis for example.

Anyway, you are not alone in this Socrato, just remember that people use the words they use. If you want to be able to nderstand what they mean all you need to do is ask and most likely people will elaborate.

In order to simplify the language, definitions must be agreed upon. Having too few words limits what concept, ideas, and contexts etc that can be described. This complicates communication due to the lack of the 'correct' words to be used to give meaning. As a result language would be rather vague and limited. Of course this situation would simplify the language from the current chaotic mess caused by there being too many words--many of which gobbledygook--of which few can agree on the definitions (this is demonstrated by individuals using words way out of context). Thus, simplifying the language is necessary, but must be achieved through word usage rather than word elimination.