The Prose of Making Sense

Pure poetry. No question about it. It ranks up there with Keat's odes.

I was sort of hoping that people with an interest in the topic would post their own examples. I will however post them when I run across them.

GoshisDead wrote:

I was sort of hoping that people with an interest in the topic would post their own examples. I will however post them when I run across them.

Readers Digest has/had a section titled "more towards picturesque speech"
I believe what you have pointed out may fall into this category.
Some writers are very good at this, some are not. There is a balance between not enough and too much.
As K/A pointed out, philosophy benefits from as precise description as possible.
Picturesque speech is great to read, those who can relate to the prose get the message just fine. But what about those whom, for whatever reason, are not onto the turn of a phrase?
I agree it is a pleasure to read, but practical for relating philosophy? Rather undependable, I think.

wayne wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

I was sort of hoping that people with an interest in the topic would post their own examples. I will however post them when I run across them.

Readers Digest has/had a section titled "more towards picturesque speech"
I believe what you have pointed out may fall into this category.
Some writers are very good at this, some are not. There is a balance between not enough and too much.
As K/A pointed out, philosophy benefits from as precise description as possible.
Picturesque speech is great to read, those who can relate to the prose get the message just fine. But what about those whom, for whatever reason, are not onto the turn of a phrase?
I agree it is a pleasure to read, but practical for relating philosophy? Rather undependable, I think.

1) You may have noticed that my OP referenced rhetoric.
2) Rhetoric is part of philosophy
3) If anyone has ever read philosophy they might notice the great thinkers are anything but plain.
4) historically it is but a recent construct not to craft an argument with an artistic turn of phrase.
5) Tell me how in the example I have cited that they are any less clear due to their writing style than they would have been otherwise. These are not sentences turned in on themselves. They do not take liberties with the language. In ART's post the cultural stereotypes that he captures through a deft metaphor were much more accurate than if he took 3 paragraphs to lay out the same thing. In TWNF's post how would 'not stacking syllables' have made its content different? less confusing? etc...

What seems to be happening here is an illogical and irrational poetry bias. People are told in their classes, poetry is poetry and science is science and never the twain shall meet, so to speak. yet read anyone who is successful in their field, assuming the field requires a lot of original writing, analyze their prose, and they are also successful at descriptive language, use poetic structures and techniques, and are quite gifted rhetoricians. They aren't any less credible because they can turn a phrase and they aren't have no less philosophical integrity. In fact they are better able to express their findings because of their poetic writing ability.

I still think you're needlessly elevating philosophers to some higher class of thinkers. If I didn't know better, I'd propose this is a conspiracy by the major furniture companies to sell more armchairs.

As you have said, and I agree, this is a wonderful piece of writing. It is well written and witty.
And yes, the majority of it is rhetorical. We still don't know, from this statement, why he thinks philosophers are being needlessly elevated, or why it may be needless.

I think you may have misunderstood my previous post. I have nothing against poetry, or even poetry in philosophical rhetoric. In fact, I enjoy such examples as you have provided, nearly as much as yourself.
However, poetry is poetry, it serves the purpose you ,yourself have described, in that it makes us want to believe , because it sounds so good.
It's value is rhetorical, a device with which we garner favor for our argument.
Smoke and mirrors.

GoshisDead wrote:

wayne wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

I was sort of hoping that people with an interest in the topic would post their own examples. I will however post them when I run across them.

Readers Digest has/had a section titled "more towards picturesque speech"
I believe what you have pointed out may fall into this category.
Some writers are very good at this, some are not. There is a balance between not enough and too much.
As K/A pointed out, philosophy benefits from as precise description as possible.
Picturesque speech is great to read, those who can relate to the prose get the message just fine. But what about those whom, for whatever reason, are not onto the turn of a phrase?
I agree it is a pleasure to read, but practical for relating philosophy? Rather undependable, I think.

1) You may have noticed that my OP referenced rhetoric.
2) Rhetoric is part of philosophy
3) If anyone has ever read philosophy they might notice the great thinkers are anything but plain.
4) historically it is but a recent construct not to craft an argument with an artistic turn of phrase.
5) Tell me how in the example I have cited that they are any less clear due to their writing style than they would have been otherwise. These are not sentences turned in on themselves. They do not take liberties with the language. In ART's post the cultural stereotypes that he captures through a deft metaphor were much more accurate than if he took 3 paragraphs to lay out the same thing. In TWNF's post how would 'not stacking syllables' have made its content different? less confusing? etc...

What seems to be happening here is an illogical and irrational poetry bias. People are told in their classes, poetry is poetry and science is science and never the twain shall meet, so to speak. yet read anyone who is successful in their field, assuming the field requires a lot of original writing, analyze their prose, and they are also successful at descriptive language, use poetic structures and techniques, and are quite gifted rhetoricians. They aren't any less credible because they can turn a phrase and they aren't have no less philosophical integrity. In fact they are better able to express their findings because of their poetic writing ability.

I still think you're needlessly elevating philosophers to some higher class of thinkers. If I didn't know better, I'd propose this is a conspiracy by the major furniture companies to sell more armchairs.


As you have said, and I agree, this is a wonderful piece of writing. It is well written and witty.
And yes, the majority of it is rhetorical. We still don't know, from this statement, why he thinks philosophers are being needlessly elevated, or why it may be needless.

I think you may have misunderstood my previous post. I have nothing against poetry, or even poetry in philosophical rhetoric. In fact, I enjoy such examples as you have provided, nearly as much as yourself.
However, poetry is poetry, it serves the purpose you ,yourself have described, in that it makes us want to believe , because it sounds so good.
It's value is rhetorical, a device with which we garner favor for our argument.
Smoke and mirrors.

I only acknowledge one sense to this heavily loaded word concerning human behaviour...
Evil is above all absence of perspective upon Reality, therefore ignorance on meaning...not so much about (not) knowing in the information sense, since such is unachievable, but about lacking the sense of Social Goal upon the very rules of Nature through man´s perspective...

The "evil" one is the one who is lost...

Our misunderstanding is as close as we can get to understanding, and I do not want to take ignorance or misunderstanding for granted, but assail them with will; and yet before the fact, admit the futility of ones ability, and all in making actual sense of life... We are finite in an infinite reality...