When I lampooned the word fuzzy in a post I was
indirectly pleading for another word, something more,
well, philosophical. I offered "ambiguity" which has a
legitimate hisotry at least in poetry and poetry is 
all about language and its many ways of making
meaning.  Fuzzy is simply too metaphorical (although
metaphor and anology can't be fully excluded from
philosophy) to be of much use in describing art or the
aesthetic  --  which are, if anything, immaterial and
therefore immeasurable and therefore incapable of
being precisely, objectively defined.  Philosophers
have employed a variety of serviceable words --far
more useful than fuzzy -- like ambiguity, imaginative,
allusion, illusion, subjectivity, make-believe, and so
on, which have the advantage of a philosophical
history and therefore are traceable through varied
concepts of art and the aesthetic.   The trouble with
words like fuzzy in serious dialogue is that they
carry a "virus" of sorts that denegrate whatever
concept they are meant to describe.  While it is
alright in political language to use words that convey
pejorative content along with descriptive meaning, it
is not alright in serious philosophy which should, I
believe, remain as neutral as possible in order to
reveal or shape concepts.  In fact, isn't that
descriptive neutrality one of the tenets of analytic
philosophy and linguistics?

WC


--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

> I think you have to start with fuzzy in order to get
> to precise. There are 
> some words often used here-art, beauty, aesthetic
> experience- whose meaning is 
> the point of the discussion and which will probably
> never get to a precise 
> point of meaning. we are chasing the various
> ramifications   of the fuzziness 
> which surrounds them,and it is possible that the
> best we can do is to be as 
> precise as we can in describing what aspect of their
> fuzziness we are discussing.
> KAte sullivan
> 
> 
> **************
> Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and 
> the live music scene in your area - Check out
> TourTracker.com!
>       
>
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)

Reply via email to