See William's posting below. William puts his finger on a dilemma (and a challenge) for any trained philosopher when he's talking to people -- however smart, creative, articulate, and learned in other fields -- who haven't had that training. Philosophically rigorous language use can be hellish to listen to -- as graceless as a robot dancing a tango. Moreover, it can be opaque, constantly using terms developed and honed for decades in the academy -- which makes them everyday lingo in grad school and scholarly journals, but impenetrable when moved off campus. Even worse, for all the intense polishing and refinement put into them, many of those terms are based on profoundly muddled notion.
So when I write on this forum, I grope for locutions that avoid the worst of academia while taking advantage of what I believe are valid insights, albeit smotheringly recondite. This has moved me to adopt "kitchen-able" English I think will serviceable. Our language -- kitchen-table or academic -- will never be perfect. But I think 'fuzzy' initially did the job. I've now used it so often it's become offensive to some. I'll rummage for something different, but it won't be 'amiguous'. Why not? Because the notion occasioned in most normal minds by the word 'ambiguous' is something like this: "having too many meanings". But that's not the only way a term can be "fuzzy". Too often the notion behind a term -- even, let's momentarily and faultily assume, when it's only "one" notion -- can be malignantly muddled. A while ago I listed a large number of 'FUZZY TERMS PHILOSOPHERS USE". E.g.: Understand Communicate Thought, Thinking Mean, meaning, b the meaning ofb Of-ness its Refer to, referring, referent About, aboutness Express, expression... I claim the "thought" in the mind of everyone who uses any of these terms is to some degree muddled, and, most often, fatally muddled -- by which I mean fatal to the possibility of any fruitful conclusions coming out of a discussion where these are key words. 'Ambiguous' can suggest a word is inadequate because it occasions three different notions. But I'm protesting more than that. Even if, seemingly, only one notion was in the mind of the writer and occasioned in the mind of the reader, I often maintain the notion is disablingly defective. Meantime, in my philosopher-mode I try to tip-toe around other mind-mines with many locutions I slip into discussions. Take the word 'occasions'. "Van Gogh's SUNFLOWERS occasioned a powerful a.e. in me..." "The word 'meaning' occasions a myriad of blurry notions in readers..." What I'm doing here is avoiding the word 'causes' without stopping to explain in every instance why 'cause' is wrong. The explanation would be boring and inscrutable to most. But I'll use 'occasions' -- harmlessly, I hope -- as a salve to the conscience of my chilly cerebrations. More specifically re some of Williams remarks below: Take a look; I hope I never used 'fuzzy' to modify "art" -- only notion, and, by loose extension, particles of language. William asks: "In fact, isn't descriptive neutrality one of the tenets of analytic philosophy and linguistics?" No -- we find pejoratives in most of the interesting philosopher's comments. They'll say about someone else's argument or position that it is wrong, a mistake, an error, confused, a blunder. You'll even find various philosophers saying the likes of, "Plato (or Aristotle) set back philosophical thinking two thousand years." Admittedly, on our forum we criticize not just the thought but the thinking a lot. I won't deny I've done this. I can think of two occasions when I quit responding to a lister because, I asserted, he was intellectually dishonest. William's posting: > 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.B 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 > aestheticB --B which are, if anything, immaterial and > therefore immeasurable and therefore incapable of > being precisely, objectively defined.B 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.B B 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.B 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.B In fact, isn't that > descriptive neutrality one of the tenets of analytic > philosophy and linguistics? > > WC > ************** 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)
