I found it poorly written obscurantist academese that managed to make an interesting idea boring. But I agree with the central thesis.
-
-
-
I fully agree with this. Asking who the target audience is here. Because I have a feeling it's a niche group.
-
My feeling was that it wouldn't have huge popular appeal but that those it did appeal to would love it intensely.
-
Hm. Maybe, yes. But I think it goes against my belief that such pieces should be readable and understandable for a wider/unprofessional audience. Which I think it isn't. I categorize it as unattainable for the pleb interested in the subject.
-
I don't think people have to commit to a certain style. What I loved about that was the mix of the literary with the analytical precision. But I don't think it's unattainable for the layman either. Just takes a little focus. Might need to be read twice.
-
Try reading it out loud. I do when editing and that's what made me fall in love with it. As well as the precision of the identification of the problem.
-
I will try this. Promise. I was merely repeating what was taught to me; "Make the layman understand." And personally I think it doesn't do that.
-
We have agreed on that. I don't think we only need publish things which are easily consumable tho. There is also pleasure and worth in having to work for something. Not pointlessly, obviously. But something allusive and evocative & right would be lost if we broke this down.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I tried. I gave it an honest go. But this looks like one of the works that Sokal and Bricmont mercilessly tore apart as an intellectual imposture. It was the passage about how Derrida’s logocentrism “de-centered the logos” that defeated me.
-
You might need to read it more than once. It needs to use these terms and also he is quite poetic but they are explained and there is a solid argument and clear insights into what is happening. By making language central, Derrida moved what it referred to into second place.
-
Logocentrism originally meant that language straightforwardly described reality. There was reality first and language referred to it. Derrida, particularly, denied this. He put language first and this was truly logocentric but it displaced reality so words aren't referring to it.
-
"If we cannot perceive and represent an objective world through the logos (reason) - describing what's there -, we can, rather, extract it from the logos (language) - construct it through discourses.
-
Honestly, you could hv written this way better. The fact that it requires your paraphrase to be understood does not speak for it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I read it. Thought I understood it. Agreed it might be a new way to think about & address “the problem”. Then thought, I’ll check out what else he has to say - Pinker subscribes to scientism! Shit
It doesn’t discount what he said in the article, but....... -
Well, yeah, that is wrong
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But how is your hangover, wino? feeling better yet?
-
Just started feeling human again, yes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm looking forward to hear more about this. I did find it hard to understand but I've saved it so I can go back to it.
-
It is something you might have to read two or three times but definitely worth it!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Your latest?
-
Not mine, no. I just edited it. It's brilliant.
-
Will give it the time it deserves. Cheers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.