So I was watching a short video talking about people being confused about punctuation and can we please stop it with the notion that things which are contingent or arbitrary must also be purposeless or meaningless? Yes, the way we use punctuation is entirely arbitrary...
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
...but so is the side of the road we drive on. That doesn't make either thing purposeless. Drive on the wrong side of the road because it is arbitrary, and the meaning and function of the arbitrary rule will hit you like a mack truck. Possibly *as* a mack truck.
1 vastaus 5 uudelleentwiittausta 51 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
(I suppose I should clarify that the argument of the video in question was that the rules of punctuation, like all of the rules of grammar are fundamentally arbitrary (yes), and therefore 'boring' (maybe) and so may be safely jettisoned for a more expressive, free-form use (no))
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 26 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
So yes, punctuation is an arbitrary system, full of entirely arbitrary 'rules' that everyone is taught, essentially by compulsion. But punctuation's purpose is to clarify meaning in a sentence. It can only fulfill that purpose if we all have the same ruleset for it in our heads.
1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 33 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
So the fact that the process of determining English punctuation was arbitrary has no bearing on the value of firm 'rules' concerning punctuation. The fact that we are all taught the *same* arbitrary set of rules (for a given language) is what gives those arbitrary rules value.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 28 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
This is not to say that language doesn't evolve; of course it does. Abandon the shared rules for language and its ability to communicate meaning is diminished. We collectively negotiate new rules all the time, but new-comers must be initiated into it as it exists. Thus, rules.
1 vastaus 1 uudelleentwiittaus 24 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Which is why, in language, as in so many things, one must learn the rules in order to know when to break the rules. The skilled writer or speaker transforms language not by standing outside of the rules and ignoring them, but by standing within them with mastery of them.
1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 24 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
And that applies to socially constructed *everything* (historically and in the present) more broadly. Just because someone is arbitrary, or socially constructed doesn't mean it isn't real and doesn't necessarily mean that it is purposeless or malignant.
1 vastaus 3 uudelleentwiittausta 32 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Some arbitrary, socially constructed things are very bad (like racism), other arbitrary, socially constructed things are quite good (like the concept of 'democracy'). Simply pointing out they are arbitrary accomplishes little.
3 vastausta 2 uudelleentwiittausta 32 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
Pointing out something is socially-constructed and not "natural" can be very powerful when it is something like "capitalism" that is naturalized and falsely read back into all of history back to the paleolithic rather than acknowledged as historically-contingent and transcendable
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
Depending on how you define capitalism, expect some fairly thorny arguments, though. E.g. evidence for early economic systems in Mesopotamia have tended over the years to drift towards a larger 'private' sector and a large but somewhat smaller space for a 'command' economy.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @Wehtammzo
'Capitalism didn't exist in the ancient world' requires either 1) a quite narrow, technical definition of capitalism, far more narrow and technical than the common, popular one, or 2) a reading that largely excludes the last 4-5 decades of archaeological evidence.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @Wehtammzo
To be clear, there is something to be said for (1), but the argument is often made w/o clarifying that capitalism in that context is understood narrowly or that the prior alternative was 'control by a hereditary aristocracy via political means' which is hardly a *better* system.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä - Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.