While I don't deny that a reality exists outside my perception, I question whether a ferocious attachment to the correspondence theory of truth is quasi-religious, motivated by "irrational" factors.

Beyond the practical advantages of the correspondence theory, which I would never deny, why such fervor?

.

Of course, there is no evidence of "objectphilia" to begin with. But, even if "objectphilia" were an established psychological truth (and, thus, corresponded to a fact) why would it matter? Whether a theory (belief) is true or not is independent of any motives (conscious or unconscious). To think otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy.

Is a perfect symbolization of external reality even conceivable??

What is a symbolization of external reality supposed to be? There is no point in making up phrases, and then asking me questions about them unless I know what they mean.

Read some continental philosophers. Cross the aisle now and then. What do you think it means? Use the dictionary.

Or, at least, if I don't understand what you are talking about, you should be able to drop the jargon, and say it in plain English. I try not to use jargon. Can't you?

One man's jargon is another man's plain English.

One man's jargon is another man's plain English.

My man, not everything is subjective! Why oh why do you believe this? Is it some sort of rebellion?

Surely you are aware that reading ability varies?

And look at what was called jargon in the first place.

This is the internet age, and we are on a philosophy forum. Anyone on the inside of a jargon is plainly going to understand this "jargon". Those who are not educated at all (and this is directed at either of you) are going to experience otherwise ordinary English as jargon.

What does reading ability have to do with what is plain English and what is jargon (technical terms within a given field)? I don't care if you're illiterate or a praised linguist, plain English is not jargon.

Which place is that?

What? Those who are not educated are not going to experience plain English as jargon. Ordinary and understandable English doesn't magically turn into technical speak just because someone isn't educated! This is not a matter of perspective. Speaking in plain English means to speak in an easily understandable manner, without complications or jargon. There's a difference, and someone's education has nothing to do with this.

1. I don't think a word like "symbolization" is jargon. Kennethamy wasn't sincerely asking in the first place. If you had asked, I would have elaborated. But why go out of one's way for facetious questioners? If I were using medical or legal speak, you would be right on this. Instead, it's more complicated than that.

2. There's a difference between elaboration and using plain English. "Symbolization of external reality" is just not the sort of phrase I would let intimidate me. I'm not saying it intimidates you, either. Some here don't want to know anymore than they already do. (You can accuse me of that, but I've already learned from this forum..) Such is life.

4. I think you misunderstood that last quoted point. I was saying that humans experience anything as jargon if it's out of their habitual use of language. I was saying that jargon is relative.

Well, your manners are good so I'll answer you sincerely.
1. I don't think a word like "symbolization" is jargon. Kennethamy wasn't sincerely asking in the first place. If you had asked, I would have elaborated. But why go out of one's way for facetious questioners? If I were using medical or legal speak, you would be right on this. Instead, it's more complicated than that.
2. There's a difference between elaboration and using plain English. "Symbolization of external reality" is just not the sort of phrase I would let intimidate me. I'm not saying it intimidates you, either. Some here don't want to know anymore than they already do. (You can accuse me of that, but I've already learned from this forum..) Such is life.
4. I think you misunderstood that last quoted point. I was saying that humans experience anything as jargon if it's out of their habitual use of language. I was saying that jargon is relative.
:detective:

Well, medical and legal speak are two different types of jargon. And I think most would agree that medical and legal jargon is not plain English even to medical practitioners or lawyers.

Also, I think you should give people the benefit of the doubt. Try this: Don't look at the poster's name before you respond - just focus on the content, and then evaluate if it's worth your time to respond.



Oh, it's not about intimidation. I know some jargon (specifically the jargon we use at my work dealing with project life cycles), but that jargon isn't my plain English. It is jargon.


No, I understood you, I just find this to be incorrect. Jargon isn't relative. A medical practitioner that uses jargon is still using jargon even though they are versed in that jargon. Their jargon doesn't become plain English simply because they are versed in it.

No, I understood you, I just find this to be incorrect. Jargon isn't relative. A medical practitioner that uses jargon is still using jargon even though they are versed in that jargon. Their jargon doesn't become plain English simply because they are versed in it.

Embracing a certain ambiguity in the world that is far from neat and tidy, it recognises that the subject and its object are mutually interdependent for each's existence and are part of an encompassing process.