masque wrote (edited )
Reply to comment by nega in Law and Civilization by nega
While philosophers will often use language that seems unusually verbose or obscure, they (ideally) only do this when it's actually necessary in order to convey their ideas precisely. There's typically a good reason why they chose one particular word or phrase over another. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer unusual phrasing for no good reason.
As an example, let's look at the phrase "vastly experienced the exact selfsame plea."
"Vastly" is not the right word here. You can't "vastly experience" something, since you can't experience a discrete event to a greater or lesser degree; you either experience it, or you don't. "Often" would be more appropriate, but I guess that's not exciting enough for you?
Also, why use "experienced" when a more natural word here would be "heard" or "received"?
There's also no good reason to say both "exact" and "selfsame;" the only difference between "same" and "selfsame" here is to emphasize the degree of same-ness, which is also what "exact" accomplishes, so using both "exact" and "selfsame" is redundant (and there's really no good reason for emphasis here at all; you could just say "same").
Finally, "plea" is more emotionally charged than you probably intended. "Complaint" would be better.
nega OP wrote
I indeed have "vastly" experienced demands on the part of members of forums for many many years, that I use "English"; simplify; speak as if I am at the supermarket; (yea, sure, one is going to do a theoretical critique of law per se in the language of the supermarket...); and on and on and on. Everyone demands that I write according to their preferences, and, that is so totally outrageous and un-American, and impossible, that it isn't even funny...
masque wrote (edited )
yea, sure, one is going to do a theoretical critique of law per se in the language of the supermarket...
You can't really defend your way of writing as being necessary for "a theoretical critique of law per se" when you use the same convoluted language to describe the simple fact that people keep telling you to write more clearly.
nega OP wrote
Why on earth do you continually insist that my writing be other than it is?! Thereby you are representing yourself as ens causa sui, knowing absolutely best and better than the Other, regarding how he or she need write; you are absurd; oh, I see, you are not an American...you are, nonetheless a "cracker", constantly whipping me for not writing in accord with your determinate will... Please employ all of that incisiveness in positing a rational destruction of my critique of law...you waste time strictly focusing on my person, instead of my position...
masque wrote (edited )
Why on earth do you continually insist that my writing be other than it is?! Thereby you are representing yourself as ens causa sui, knowing absolutely best and better than the Other, regarding how he or she need write; you are absurd; oh, I see, you are not an American...you are, nonetheless a "cracker", constantly whipping me for not writing in accord with your determinate will...
Obviously there's no sense in which you unqualifiedly ought to write in a particular way, but if your goal is to communicate your ideas then it's clear that your current way of writing is not very good at accomplishing this goal.
nega OP wrote (edited )
Get off of strictly focusing on me as a person. Focus on the ideas, the logas, the precepts at play here. If it is constantly thought that I should write "clearer", that perception of absence of clarity, is a function of the reader's lack of both the vocabulary and, the intellectual instrumentation requisite for comprehension of what I am, purely clearly, setting forth;----it is simply that you are neither reflective enough, nor toughminded enough, to see, to fathom, what is in fact clearly set forth in scholarly English.
Like I say, I am under the necessity to remain relatively indifferent to how each particular reader experiences my writing; I must write in the peculiar mode wherein a critical destruction of the theoretical construct "law", is pursued, via the peculiar twentieth century intellectual instruments, whereby, the mistaken precept of a determinative language of law, must necessarily be criticized, and demonstrated to be unintelligible, on the human ontological plane; and, that critique via ontological precept, cannot be conducted in any other language or via any other path than via the language of existential phenomenological ontology...I have simplified as much as I personally can. Go ahead, rewrite the entire effort in accordance with your particular sapeintality; fine, that would be beautiful. Produce a version for simpler persons...go for it... Try reading my stuff out loud and thereby follow the tempo of the thought...it is clear, believe me...
masque wrote (edited )
Get off of strictly focusing on me as a person. Focus on the ideas, the logas, the precepts at play here.
No one will want to engage with your ideas if you can't be bothered to express them clearly.
If it is constantly thought that I should write "clearer", that perception of absence of clarity, is a function of the reader's lack of both the vocabulary and, the intellectual instrumentation requisite for comprehension of what I am, purely clearly, setting forth;
"Lack of vocabulary" has nothing to do with it.
Let's look at "vastly experiencing" again. Everyone knows what "vastly" means. If someone doesn't immediately understand what you meant by vastly experiencing something, it's not because they lack the vocabulary, but rather because you are using the word "vastly" wrong.
On the whole, you seem to be convinced that your writing is clear, and it's merely the ideas that are difficult to understand. This is simply not the case. You are fundamentally not good at communicating, as evidenced by the fact that all of your comments, even the ones that don't actively discuss your critique of the law, are written in the same bizarre idiolect.
Ennui wrote
If it is constantly thought that I should write "clearer", that perception of absence of clarity, is a function of the reader's lack of both the vocabulary and, the intellectual instrumentation requisite for comprehension of what I am, purely clearly, setting forth;----it is simply that you are neither reflective enough, nor toughminded enough, to see, to fathom, what is in fact clearly set forth in scholarly English.
Produce a version for simpler persons...
You're taking a rather long route to be an ableist. The very people you're calling simple are the ones engaging with your obtuse writing and understanding it. Maybe you should be more concise; here's an example: fuck off, and fuck your armchair.
nega OP wrote (edited )
Okay, my dear English 101 genius. The problem with your approach to the writing of another writer is that you do not in fact have in hand the ideally worded paper you are imagining that I should have written.
Gee, pardon me, you were not here when I was writing...I shall not, in future, be able to write a word without you here...please try to recall that we are Americans in America; I will write as me, because I am the historical being that is me, and, there is no possible way that I can write as you. According to you I would have to learn the wording preferences of everyone on earth, and, write a version of my piece differently for each and every person on earth...
It is so silly to tell me what I should have said and how I should have said it. Have you written a critique of law per se? Lets see it...
Better yet; let us have a cerebroanastamosis performed, wherein your brain is transplanted into my skull, then I could never employ incorrect terminology ever...your brain knows best...not mine...
masque wrote (edited )
Okay, my dear English 101 genius. The problem with your approach to the writing of another writer is that you do not in fact have in hand the ideally worded paper you are imagining that I should have written.
I obviously don't expect a random forum post to be "ideally worded," but the point of my previous comment is that you seem to be going out of your way to write in a way that seems unnatural to the vast majority of native English speakers. This is the opposite of "writing clearly, absolutely clearly."
According to you I would have to learn the wording preferences of everyone on earth, and, write a version of my piece differently for each and every person on earth
I don't write a different version of every post I make for each and every person on earth, and yet somehow people are not constantly pleading with me to write more clearly.
please try to recall that we are Americans in America
Bold of you to assume that I'm American.
nega OP wrote
A critique of law is, then, in fact, indeed, now being written in a way that appears unnatural to the vast majority of English speakers (do you indeed speak for that vast majority?!) The text is being written in the way the auteur deems it requisite to be written, pretty much absolutely regardless of what every tom dick and harry thinks...
For me to refer to myself and my fellow Americans as Americans does not necessarily include you...you see, you are misinterpreting...what makes you think that everything we write is, anything whatsoever which we write, is interpreted and/or understood in the way we intend!? It will not be so interpreted and/or so understood/comprehended/taken...
masque wrote (edited )
(do you indeed speak for that vast majority?!)
Three of the four top-level comments also criticize the clarity or your post (possibly all four, if you interpret "kinda based" as sarcastic), and by your own admission you have "vastly experienced the exact selfsame plea" in other forums. I'm pretty confident that I speak for the vast majority.
nega OP wrote (edited )
I am writing in the fashion which is required to enunciate the criticisms of law which I am setting forth by means of existing existentialist thought. Thought which was first published in 1943. The world has had more than seventy years to attain some inkling of that established thinking. Plato said it takes four hundred years for philosophy to seep down to grassroots persons. I write in the mode which I see to be necessary to write a critical destruction of the notion of law itself. That critical destruction has to be written the way I deem it must be written. It is not your office to inform me, merely to say, merely to assert, that I am doing my theoretical critique of law per se incorrectly. It is your place to write a piece of literature antithetical to my position per se, (not merely antithetical to my person as such), wherein you would overthrow Spinoza's dictum "determinatio negatio est"'; until you can do that, you are not critically addressing a possible means of dissolving the horrid problem we now experience across the world, wherein absolutely legalistically-oriented maniacs, murder human beings in the name of a language of law, which language is mistakenly thought to be an absolute language, whereby every person need necessarily jump when it says frog...or possibly die...its all too too Biblical...
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments