I was noticing the argument about Player's wording of his post. *sigh* I guess I add in my two cents. (I sigh like it's some huge chore and I'm not just dying to let loose my opinion. 🙂 )
Anyhow, I think that Kharma and the other person (sorry I haven't been paying that much attention) both have valid points. I mean, if the person has used his or her vocabulary properly and isn't just using big words to mask a simple message and talk down to the rest of us then it's all good. But, on the other hand, if he's/she really are trying to get an honest critique on his/her theory you'd think that he or she would use words that most people can understand so that everyone can have a fair chance to read it easily without having to pull a dictionary out of their ass every ten seconds.
Did that make any sense? Yeah, I'm just going to leave now. *slowly backs away*
Go look at other philosophy forums on the net - the members there use much more complicated words than Player. Read any other philosophies by the famous philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Ayer, Wittgenstein, Sarte, etc - their vocabulary makes your head spin. A philosophical theory cannot always be explained in simple, common words. Kant even had to invent his own words for certain new concepts - and he's regarded as the most brilliant modern philosopher.
The point is that if you're to lazy to broaden your vocabulary, then you might as well ignore philosophy.
Originally posted by Shades
The point is that if you're to lazy to broaden your vocabulary, then you might as well ignore philosophy.
Again with the put downs!
Here is the story of how the English language came to be.
http://www.grsampson.net/QBirthOfEng.html
Hi everyone, I majored in philosophy but it has been awhile since then and to be honest I can't quite understand the point or statement being made beginning this post. What I can say is that some of my teacher's were incapable of wording things in a manner that leads you into understanding. One does not have to dumb down their vocabulary to help understanding but perhaps has to choose more words which can create a path to better understanding. It may not be that the beginning is not too long but not long enough.
For instance what is meant by "recoil of self-aware being against its environment'? It sounds like objective scientific observation but the following after that sounds like the opposite with "high sesitivity and intensity". Then I am guessing it is meant as High analytical sensitivity and not emotional. Am I breaking this down right or have I taken the wrong path?
Originally posted by Shadesits hardly broadening anything.. you're just sugar coating basic words.. its not like what you're saying has any new meaning to it because its comprised of all new letters.. its just fancier and just screams "Wow I used a thesaurus for 20 minutes composing this post" 🙄 .. and really you should lay off the socking.. its sickening
Go look at other philosophy forums on the net - the members there use much more complicated words than Player. Read any other philosophies by the famous philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Ayer, Wittgenstein, Sarte, etc - their vocabulary makes your head spin. A philosophical theory cannot always be explained in simple, common words. Kant even had to invent his own words for certain new concepts - and he's regarded as the most brilliant modern philosopher.The point is that if you're to lazy to broaden your vocabulary, then you might as well ignore philosophy.
also this "Philosophical condition/method" sounds alot like the basis for psycho-analytical observations [basic intro to psych stuff]
Originally posted by space
Philosophy is the most complex intelectual dimension - accept it...no philosopher deliberately tries to sugar coat basic words - complicated concepts often require uncommon vocabulary towards just expression.
I disagree, there used to be a guy on this forum called philosophicus who overcomplicated simple concepts in order to appear intelligent. Philosophy is not complicated by the very nature of it's subjects, it becomes complicated and convoluted by some, who in their effort to appear more intelligent than they are, or others who try to cover up or fog an idea that holds little merit with a "smoke and mirrors" approach.
Although I do like to participate in philosophical discussions and do enjoy poetry, I find that often poets and philosophers "muddy their own waters to appear deep."
I don't agree with you. Or perhaps, something can be as complicated or simple as you make it - there is no absolute standard for that...again it's subjective. So whether you 'over-complicate/disguise' it, or over-simplify it, it doesn't matter, as long as it makes sense for the individual conceiving the idea.
Originally posted by space
So whether you 'over-complicate/disguise' it, or over-simplify it, it doesn't matter, as long as it makes sense for the individual conceiving the idea.
"It doesn't matter, as long as it makes sense for the individual conceiving the idea", unless that person wants to be able to communicate that idea, then it matters very much.