11
   

The Prose of Making Sense

 
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 06:29 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Pure poetry. No question about it. It ranks up there with Keat's odes.


How characteristic of you to be unable to appreciate the philosophical content of this thread. i'd say it was a pity, but it isn't. At this point, it's just a shame. If you are incapable of productively contributing to this thread, why not practice restraint? At this point you are only embarrassing yourself, not your target.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 06:49 am
@GoshisDead,
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.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 10:56 am
@wayne,
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.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 06:06 pm
@GoshisDead,
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.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Sep, 2010 06:37 pm
@wayne,
wayne wrote:


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.
The feeling in the statement is called reverse snobbery. I'm looking down on you because you're proud of yourself and you shouldn't be because you're no better than anybody else. The use of the word class and the reference to armchairs draws a picture of a philosopher as an absurd boob. And anybody who ponders philosophy is probably too stupid to realize they've been taken in by the boobery. It does it's job of making the reader feel like he's been hit in the face by a spit wad.

But isn't all speech some kind of poetry? Politicians are experts at making verbal spit wads. They're so good at it that when one actually says something inspiring my eye brows go up. If I sense they're in earnest, my jaw drops. That happened a few years back as I watched the Democratic national convention on TV.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 08:54 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

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.


Assuming as I have stated that these arguments express ther arguments logically and rationally, how is a well turned phrase, smoke and mirrors? Also how is a poorly written phrase more accurate? All writing is written for an audience. Although the poetics are superfluous, how would they be disingenusous to finding any sort of truth? No philosopher dispassionately writes down their opinions and findings about a subject. They are all arguing for something, i.e. trying to persuade. They all employ rhetoric. Adhering to the recent scientistic style is in itself a form of rhetoric. It is called adhering to decorum. Oh no! I feel like I'm in a fun house, those silly dry writers and their smoke and mirrors. it is a rhetorical argument so strong that some people cannot see past it. I am commenting on a rhetorical writing technique that is persuasive, to some, not to others. You are treating it as if it were a sophist trick to get you to believe something you don't.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 10:26 am
Fil Albequerque wrote a post on evil that uses stunning hyperbole. This is how hyperbole should be used.

Quote:
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 manĀ“s perspective...

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


Qualifiers are well placed and used with finesse

only acknowledge one sense - Admiting that there are others, but recognizing only one as worthwhile. This is good hyperbole because it is not accusatory and is elitist without denying the existence of other options.

above all - implies that the opinion stated is absolute but had to overcome other opinions.

The resultant post can be as about as harsh as fil wishes after such deft qualifications of hyperbole, as it is there are claims to people being delusional, which is a fairly harsh criticism.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 09:10 pm
Mind if I just keeping reading along, I don't think I have the chops to actually post anything. I do however see many gems among the threads here at ol'A2K. I'll have to look closer at why they are so.
I've never really considered the rhythm of a sentence, or at least someone else's sentence on the internet. Now, I'm afraid I will.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 09:13 pm
@Ceili,
Did you know I started a thread on your writing once, Ceili? It was about how good your profile was/is. I'll have to see if I can find it.


Aha, here it is - http://able2know.org/topic/153944-1
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 09:23 pm
@Ceili,
O course I don't mind, I'm just shooting from the hip here as it is.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 09:34 pm
@ossobuco,
Wow! Thanks Osso, I'm blushing now. That was very sweet.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Sep, 2010 09:37 pm
Cyracuz wrote

Quote:
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...


A fun sense of rhyme can often be found in Cyracuz' posts. however he seems to favor couplets in the same sentence, rather than on different lines.

-ing/-ing - ail/ill - ility/ility - ite/ite

One should never underestimate the persuasion power of unpretentious symmetry.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Poims - Favrits - Discussion by edgarblythe
Poetry Wanted: Seasons of a2k. - Discussion by tsarstepan
Night Blooms - Discussion by qwertyportne
It floated there..... - Discussion by Letty
Allen Ginsberg - Discussion by edgarblythe
"Alone" by Edgar Allan Poe - Discussion by Gouki
I'm looking for a poem by Hughes Mearns - Discussion by unluckystar
Spontaneous Poems - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2019 at 10:28:24