Philosophy discussion
This topic is about
Brandlife
General
>
Are there any borders to philosophy?
date
newest »
newest »
“I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English―it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don't mean utterly, but kill most of them―then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart. An adjective habit, or a wordy, diffuse, flowery habit, once fastened upon a person, is as hard to get rid of as any other vice.”― Mark TwainCan you speak more simply, and clarify what you're trying to say?
Do the work for us, so that we understand with clarity what you are saying, or asking, otherwise no one will respond. I don't want to misunderstand you, but I'm afraid you don't understand yourself. Help me help you.
Thanks!
Mark Twain's third sentence isn't actually a simple sentence. Anyway, in philosophical writing at least there is no way you can do without complex sentences. These sentence our necessary in part because in philosophy you are often are trying to explain complex ideas. And, in any good philosophical writing there are qualifications to be made. These are better done within a sentence, properly structure. Also, consider great literature; these pieces of writing contain many complex sentences. While, I have not read, or probably will not read Andrej's book, writing that is nothing but short simple sentences sounds choppy and is hard to follow because of it.
Dear Michael, Steven,Ludwig Wittgenstein uses language with almost no adjectives, Dante on the other hand uses a lot of them. Both are hard to decypher. On the other hand you get thousands of "how to do" books that even use metaphors and adjectives, but are in fact so easy to digest.
And then there is language itself. What a joy to write in foreign language. And since there are some readers that did understand my language, though they took it as quite extreme, I will continue to write in my own style. I do the same in my mother's language.
Andrej wrote: "Dear Michael, Steven,Ludwig Wittgenstein uses language with almost no adjectives, Dante on the other hand uses a lot of them. Both are hard to decypher. On the other hand you get thousands of "how..."
As I said, I will probably never read your book. But, let me say that I would never dream of asking anybody to change the way he or she writes, accept maybe if I found myself teaching writing. We are so individualistic anyway, and the written world would be so boring if everybody wrote the same.
Andrej wrote: "Although this question arises from my personal experience with my latest book, it will not be taken as self promotion, I hope.Feedbacks from the book, that explores quite practical domain of brand..."
You need to give examples - otherwise you are talking hot air. The boundaries of philosophy are in speculation - philosophy does not get into creating verified knowledge like science does, it offers speculation (hypotheses) that need to be investigated. On the life-guidance side, philosophy has failed completely, and it has imploded in the 20th century. Religions failed because they did not deal with reality - they were elaborate systems of make-believe, which you cannot base physical survival on (only survival among foolish humans). The Philosophy of Broader Survival answers that call - it offers the only sane mode of thinking beyond pure base animal survival ('beyond' being Broader Survival in a harsh and deadly universe).
Feedbacks from the book, that explores quite practical domain of branding, tell me, that those readers that come from marketing or business practice take it as a philosophy investigation and not as practical. On the other side philosophers take it as a book that deals with issues that are not pertinent to philosophy since "branding" seems too practical for them.
Curious question arises from here: Since all sciences originate in philosophy, a true philosopher should not avoid to explain any issue - be it from physical or metaphysical nature. On the other hand a true practitioner, should he or she really understand the nature of his/her practice, should understand the true nature of his/her domain that can only be holistically explained through philosophy of that particular domain.