Half The Time I'm Never Right

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » New Member Introductions
  3. » Half The Time I'm Never Right

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 27 May, 2008 06:21 pm
I like to be pure in my approach to Philosophy.

It doesn't really interest me who said what first and how many degrees he/she had when he/she said it. That kind of talk is a cheap trick used to intimmidate people into nodding their heads. I say if you understand an idea then it is yours. Take ownership of it and defend it.

These academics think they own Philosophy. Baaaaaa. They invent fancy words for ideas that could just as easily be spoken in common terms. More parlor tricks. You can put a turd on a plate and cover it with all the chocolate sause and whip cream you want, but I still wont take a bite. Please stop spouting the psuedointellectual bull. Wink

In the end we are all fools, and the most important cliche to remember is that we must be able to laugh at ourselves. And don't worry, if you can't laugh at yourself Ill make up for it by laughing at you twice as hard.Smile
 
de budding
 
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 06:27 am
@infinidream,
Well I know an oracle once said that Aristotle was the wisest man in Athens because he claims that he knew nothing. But please don't be so quick to dismiss academic writing and such as needless decoration, it is specific. Hereme and Vasska discussed some implications of laziness and inconsideration of language in use.

But I partly agree and very much like the term 'psuedointelectual' I think I know what you're referring to here and I agree.

So if his is your introductory post... Welcome! I'll see you on the boards Very Happy.
Dan.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 07:51 am
@de budding,
 
AmericanPop
 
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 05:33 pm
@infinidream,
I agree with de, we North Americans are already too anti-intellectual, it has had the consequences of rendering us too vague in our language. To repudiate ostentatious pomposity is one thing, but to reject the value of language is another.

But I still can relate to what you're saying. Who said what, when, and in what context is a matter for historians, not philosophy. Unless of course you are concerned with the philosophy of history and the possibility of teleology. If to hold wisdom is to be truly self-aware, one must understand every step that was taken in the lead up to coherence. If you are an Hegelian for example - who said what, when and in what context is a central part of your philosophy.
 
infinidream
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 07:41 am
@AmericanPop,
Thanks for your responses. I can appreciate your points.

My intention wasn't to dumb down the language we use in philosophy. I am questioning the motives of those who use big words when they are not necessary, which is something I've seen a lot.

I don't agree that it is necessary to use specialized words in order to be specific, but it is convenient sometimes among people who philosophize a lot, I'll give you that.

I'm a purist. as long as your goal is to get at the truth, you're all right with me.:cool:
 
boagie
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 09:48 am
@infinidream,
infinidream wrote:
Thanks for your responses. I can appreciate your points.

My intention wasn't to dumb down the language we use in philosophy. I am questioning the motives of those who use big words when they are not necessary, which is something I've seen a lot.

I don't agree that it is necessary to use specialized words in order to be specific, but it is convenient sometimes among people who philosophize a lot, I'll give you that.

I'm a purist. as long as your goal is to get at the truth, you're all right with me.:cool:


infinidream,Smile

SmileI think it is a matter of paying your dues, in any other ambition in life, any displine has its own terminology. My own knowledge of philosophical terminology is somewhat wanting, but I do not blame others who have succeeded in mastering it for my own inadequacies. If you wish to feel more confident in expressing yourself, the answer is not to dumb down the field, but to purchase a dictionary on philosophical terminology.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 10:04 am
@infinidream,
infinidream wrote:
I like to be pure in my approach to Philosophy.

It doesn't really interest me who said what first and how many degrees he/she had when he/she said it. That kind of talk is a cheap trick used to intimmidate people into nodding their heads. I say if you understand an idea then it is yours. Take ownership of it and defend it.
Wink

quote]

I agree that if an idea is understood it is yours, there realy shouldn't be the 'ownership' of an idea, and I believe that anybody can do philosophy.
However, I believe in using fancy words, there seems to be a correlation between big words with bigger ideas or meanings that can be derived from them.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 10:06 am
@Holiday20310401,
All words are qualifications and/or limitations:D
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 10:09 am
@boagie,
Yeah but wha about writing poetry.
Although I supose they either qualifiy or not.... Good point, I never thought of it like that
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » New Member Introductions
  3. » Half The Time I'm Never Right
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/20/2019 at 11:24:50