Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
>*YOU* are full of bullshit.
>Hegelian is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that
>a lot of substandard thinkers use it, to the point where it's much much
>easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
>the choice of ordinary language were to do *nothing* but keep the
>continentals out, that in itself would be a huge reason to use it.
>In other words: the choice of ordinary language is the only sane choice.
>I know Gilbert Ryle jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come
>to the conclusion that any philosopher that would prefer the project to be
>in Hegelian is likely a philosopher that I really *would* prefer to piss
>off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.
>Hegelian leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
>the "deep" features of the language like dialectics and deconstruction and other
>total and utter crap, that may "help" your program, but causes:
> - infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
> that dialectics and especially deconstruction are understandable and
> translatable is just so full of BS that it's not even funny)
> - inefficient abstracted thought models where two years down the road
> you notice that some abstraction wasn't very clear, but now all
> your publications depends on all the nice semiotics around it, and you
> cannot fix it without rewriting your app.
>In other words, the only way to do good, clear, and language-level and
>translatable philosophy ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
>basically available in ordinary language. And limiting your project to ordinary
>language means that people don't screw that up, and also means that you
>get a lot of philosophers that do actually understand language-level issues
>and don't screw things up with any idiotic "semiotics" crap.
>>
Very interesting. A few weeks ago I attended a lecture by Jacques Fontanille (a semiotician). I couldn't understand almost anything that he said, but I left with the impression that he was saying much less than it appeared, and that semiotics aren't really important or at all useful.
What is the source of the quotes?
>>
>>9236362
Woah you're a smart guy for not understanding what a guy was saying in a field you done no background reading in then accept your emotional intuition it was all bullshit anyway.
>>
File: Explaining the Analytic-Continental Divide.png (115KB, 574x450px) Image search:
[Google]
115KB, 574x450px
>>
>>9236541
I didn't "accept" it though, in the sense that you are implying. I still have that impression, but since I haven't bothered myself investigating it further (because of that impression) I don't really view it as a fact.
>>
>>9236583
Yeah now you don't now that you're being called on to be accountable.
Semiotics is one of the most straightforward schools in the continental tradition and was a major instrument in the developement of modern Linguistics. You should keep your dumb impressions to your diary or be ready to back them up faggot.
>>
>>9236590
So please, can you provide any evidence to prove that semiotics is indeed deep or useful today to analyze the universe or any part of it and provide accurate explanations and useful knowledge?
>>
>>9236612
It provided us a way of analyzing the function and nature of symbols in a way in which they are more than simple representations of propositions.
That foundation alone was a major necessary step towards understanding the nature of language and its affects in all aspects of life from psychology to interpreting texts.
>>
>>9236644
So, does it offer historical perspective on the evolution of an old stage of the development of linguistics?
>>
>>9236708
I'm listing only its most obvious economic implication, it is in the end a school of philosophy and the majority of its implications have to be innately understand and not seen in terms of productive utility
>>
>>9236304
lol why do STEMnerds even bother with philosophy
>>
>>9236804
>austin
>STEMnerd
>>
>>9236304
>[O]ur common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the connexions they have found marking, in the lifetimes of many generations: these surely are likely to be more numerous, more sound, since they have stood up to the long test of the survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in ordinary and reasonably practical matters, than any that you or I are likely to think up in our arm-chairs of an afternoon — the most favoured alternative method.
Austin is BASED. Eat shit Russel.
>>
File: austism.png (227KB, 1411x955px) Image search:
[Google]
227KB, 1411x955px
>>9238268
<3
>>
>>9236304
Eichman was a good man who just did his job.
>>
>>9238802
what did he mean by this
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3