In a message dated 10/18/08 12:14:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Cheerskep: I still do not accept that all German
> words ... how about "gesellschaft", may readily be translated into English
> without at least awkwardness.
>
Geoff, go look: at no time have I said that ALL words have synonyms either
within or between languages. The universal I was trying to rebut was, "NO
words
have synonyms." That seems to me to be exquisite nonsense.
Recall: this thread started with my listing six words that I said afforded
opportunities to make useful "nice distinctions", and I invited listers to try
to articulate distinctions they discerned in their own notions behind the
words. I myself offered some simple thoughts ab out what might be a useful
distinction to maintain between "gift" and "talent". I even hinted that I
myself
probably use some of the others interchangeably.
gift
talent
aptitude
skill
capacity
craft
> "If Eskimos really do have 27/whatever words
> for snow, I'm sure that we don't have English words which would readily
> serve as translations for all of them."
>
I have an unrealiable memory that that assertion was eventually revealed to
be false.
>
>
> "I haven't read a lot of philosophers but I would concur that [when
> philosophers] write so
> the layman can comprehend the theses, it suggests the philosophers are
> clearer in their
> own minds about what they're discussing."
>
Some time, go Google the entry "ordinary language philosophy". (I can't
remember who it was, but I have a recollection of some philosopher saying, in
effect, "I believe that if I can't explain my point in everyday language to an
intelligent listerner, there's something wrong with my point.")
Say I, "ordinary language philosophy" has somewhat stalled because it has not
shaken the thinking behind such phrases as "the meanings of words" and "how
words mean", and the use of the form, "What is X?", as in "What is reality?"
In particular am I astonished to find no philosopher addressing this basic
implication of their general position: They all believe that words ("signs"
etc)
DO something. They believe "words" carry on the activity of "meaning",
"signifying", "denoting" etc. Saul Kripke, perhaps the "leading" living
philosopher today, believes names"name", "pick out".
As far as I can tell, no one has ever looked closely at the notion that
"words" carry out an "action". To me, that notion entails dizzying
absurdities, and
they've never been examined. The outlandish idea that words DON'T act is so
contrary to ingrained assumption, that not only is it not taken seriously,
it's never considered at all.
If one can ever so wrench his mind as to consider it, it still takes a long
time before its implications become apparent -- or, at any rate, it took MY
slow mind a long time to see its impact on fundaments of philosophy of
language,
mind, and metaphysics ("ontology").
> "I do resent the employment of either
> esoteric terminology or the use of familiar words in unfamiliar ways. I'm
> not sayng/writing that it shouldn't be done, isn't done; just that I think
> it gums up communication. Geoff C"
>
Agreed. And one of the many reasons is that it often veils unquestioned,
fundamental assumptions.
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: gift/talent/aptitude/skill/ etc
> >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:42:57 EDT
> >
> >Geoff writes:
> >
> >"I can understand a German-speaker's belief
> >that no English word quite expresses what he understands in the German
word
> >"X"."
> >
> >If you know three or four people fluent in both English and German, ask
> >them
> >how they would translate these four words:
> >
> >Cigar, soap, tooth, shoe.
> >
> >See if every one of them doesn't say:
> >
> >"Zigarre, Seife, Zahn, Schuh."
> >
> >Go on to prepositions and conjunctions. Don't expect any of them to claim
> >'und' is not synonymous with 'and'. Words are my turf. I'd love to see
them
> >all
> >glorified as unique. But that's baloney.
> >
> >In truth, I hate how custom made, specialized, the philosophers have tried
> >to
> >make their language. It makes stuff inscrutable to non-academics, and that
> >shouldn't be. I'm pleased to notice what I think is a sharp decline in
> >recent
> >years in the use of the symbols of mathematical logic in philosophical
> >journals.
> >
> >But wait, am I being inconsistent? "Be rigorous but be readable?" No, I
> >don't
> >think I am. It's hard, but it can be done to a useful degree.
> >An essential required gift is good ability to see where the reader can go
> >wrong. I used to say in a self-aggrandizing way, "I work and work and work
> >on a
> >piece till I've got it where it seems like it took no work at all." (Not
> >the
> >pieces on this forum, I admit!) What I was largely aiming at was silently
> >side-stepping confusing verbal misteps while discussing complicated
> >notions.
> >
> >Some of the best philosophers are celebrated for their writing "style",
and
> >that's the way it should be. David Hume, and, often, Bertrand Russell,
were
> >none the less rigorous for making their work "accessible" to the layman
> >where
> >they could. I honestly believe that the pursuit of linguistic "rigor" has
> >often
> >been literally counter-productive in philosophy, and, paradoxically,
> >perhaps
> >most woefully in academic philosophers themselves. The devising of
"terms
> >of
> >art" like 'epistemic' and 'the aesthetic' (where 'aesthetic' is a noun)
> >has
> >made for more muddlement than clarification in philosophy.
> >
> >The later Wittgenstein, despite putting forth some of the most bizarrely
> >novel philosophical ideas, worked hard, and often successfully, to frame
> >them in
> >something very like "kitchen-table" lingo. If he often failed, it had
> >less to
> >do with his language than with the fact that certain key notions of his
> >were
> >muddled or incomplete. But all of us have those.
> >
>
**************
New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
