I'm looking forward to seeing the discussions unfold on Ned Resnikoff's new Philoblog. Already he's posted and addressed some stuff I brought up, which is nice. His stated goal is to make academic philosophy less obtuse for the smart but not formally trained. I'm all for that.
I only have a few classes' worth of philosophy under my belt. My professor freshman year told me I should major in it after reading my papers, but I never went for it. Part of me wishes I had, even though my English/Creative Writing major was lovely. I value art and language as ways to find and share truth in an intuitive way; in the left-brain corner, I also value rigorous thinking and dialogue. So I am intrigued by philosophy, glancing sideways and picking up bits and pieces, sensing (worrying?) that I ought to know more about it if I want to play with the other smart kids. But there's resistance too. A sense that academic jargon gets in the way of good communication of ideas. Uncertainty over how well certain theories really illuminate on-the-ground truths. My own faith in the human animal learning about itself through the scientific method and building beliefs on facts (hence my question to Ned).
Still, even the self is an abstraction. Perhaps it's only natural then, and worthwhile, to spend time further abstracting.
Whenever I encounter needlessly complicated academic jargon, I always want to just say, "meow!"
ReplyDeletehttp://writing-program.uchicago.edu/toys/randomsentence/write-sentence.htm
YES--I love that link. I will meow right along with you.
ReplyDelete