Adjectives are a useful way to fill up space when one doesn't have facts. On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was thinking the other day that it was getting increasingly > difficult to tell what people intended to say in quite serious > newspapers-the Guardian? the Times? and essays--inthe TLS- because of > all the damn adjectives and figures of speech. > KAte Sullivan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Jul 28, 2012 11:16 am > Subject: Re: Henry Adams quote > > Michael Brady catches me here where, despite all my own preachments, I > use > a potentially misleading word and fail to describe what I have in mind > with > it. The word is 'weightless'. I wrote: > > Here's a fact about "thought": it is not >> stable; in a respectable mind, it starts as something weightless and, >> > as > the > >> thinker reflects, the thought is tested and advanced, it takes on >> > density, > >> heft, and richness. >> > > But Michael is wrong to poke fun at me by attributing to me a notion of > 'weightless' I did not have. He tells me what "I mean": > > "You mean, thoughts begin as no thing ("weightless") and grow in mass > ("density," "heft") and actual value? Whoa. Didn't know that." > > In fact the notion I had in mind with 'weightless' was one of > "light-weight", "trifling", inconsiderable. With almost every > interesting word I > encountered in philosophy -- like 'cause', 'meaning', 'belief' -- my > initial > notions in Philosophy 101 were all those demeaning adjectives. And I > suspect > Michael knew I did not think of 'weightless' as "no thing". So I cannot > take him > seriously here. In sum, I think Michael's objection to my use of > 'weightless' is, call it, weightless.
