Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:56 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 8:25 am Consciousness is just another word for nothing, and nothing is just another word for everything.

Nothing and Everything is one without a second.

No word can define one without a second, yet, every word defines one without a second.

Just THIS... UNKNOWN knowing.

You to cashier: Where's my change? You gave me nothing.

Cashier to you: I gave you everything. Nothing is just another word for everything.

Suddenly, dawn breaks on Marblehead.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:56 pm You to cashier: Where's my change? You gave me nothing.

Cashier to you: I gave you everything. Nothing is just another word for everything.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 3:05 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:56 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 8:25 am Consciousness is just another word for nothing, and nothing is just another word for everything.

Nothing and Everything is one without a second.

No word can define one without a second, yet, every word defines one without a second.

Just THIS... UNKNOWN knowing.

You to cashier: Where's my change? You gave me nothing.

Cashier to you: I gave you everything. Nothing is just another word for everything.

Suddenly, dawn breaks on Marblehead.

Money is a concept known.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:56 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 8:25 am Consciousness is just another word for nothing, and nothing is just another word for everything.

Nothing and Everything is one without a second.

No word can define one without a second, yet, every word defines one without a second.

Just THIS... UNKNOWN knowing.

You to cashier: Where's my change? You gave me nothing.

Cashier to you: I gave you everything. Nothing is just another word for everything.

Suddenly, dawn breaks on Marblehead.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 3:54 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 3:05 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:56 pm
You to cashier: Where's my change? You gave me nothing.

Cashier to you: I gave you everything. Nothing is just another word for everything.

Suddenly, dawn breaks on Marblehead.

Money is a concept known.

You to cashier: Where's my change?

Cashier to you: Three dollars and seventy five cents.

You to cashier: But I don't see any change?

Cashier to you: Money's just a concept. That's what I gave you. Have a nice day!

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 4:05 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:56 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 8:25 am Consciousness is just another word for nothing, and nothing is just another word for everything.

Nothing and Everything is one without a second.

No word can define one without a second, yet, every word defines one without a second.

Just THIS... UNKNOWN knowing.

You to cashier: Where's my change? You gave me nothing.

Cashier to you: I gave you everything. Nothing is just another word for everything.

Suddenly, dawn breaks on Marblehead.

That's good example of everyday language. Philosophical jargon is explicit and precise. Academic disciplines usually have their own jargons.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 5:37 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 3:54 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 3:05 pm

Money is a concept known.

You to cashier: Where's my change?

Cashier to you: Three dollars and seventy five cents.

You to cashier: But I don't see any change?

Cashier to you: Money's just a concept. That's what I gave you. Have a nice day!

Change is just a concept known in this conception. In reality, nothing never changes.

That which appears to know, never knows except in this conception that nothing never conceived.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:36 pm
The moment you begin to read or hear something infected with academic jargon, such as, "paradigm," "dialectic," "trope," "egoism," "core commitments," "synergy," "emergence," "holism," "gestalt," "hegemony," "coherence," "critical thinking," "model," "mode," "perception," "peer review," "rubric," "transcend," "normative," "altruistic," "heteronormative," "nadir," "telelogical," "gestalt," "predicated," "redolent of," "kitsch," "post modern," "neoclassic," "gouache," "homiletics," "linguistics," or "paleo...." you know what you are reading is either a lie or worthless.

Sure, most of those words have legitimate meanings and uses outside academia, but when they come from some academic's mouth, pen, or keyboard, they are devoid of meaning and have no other purpose than to make some absurd, inane, or insipid nonsense sound or look profound or important.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:37 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:36 pm
The moment you begin to read or hear something infected with academic jargon, such as, "paradigm," "dialectic," "trope," "egoism," "core commitments," "synergy," "emergence," "holism," "gestalt," "hegemony," "coherence," "critical thinking," "model," "mode," "perception," "peer review," "rubric," "transcend," "normative," "altruistic," "heteronormative," "nadir," "telelogical," "gestalt," "predicated," "redolent of," "kitsch," "post modern," "neoclassic," "gouache," "homiletics," "linguistics," or "paleo...." you know what you are reading is either a lie or worthless.

Sure, most of those words have legitimate meanings and uses outside academia, but when they come from some academic's mouth, pen, or keyboard, they are devoid of meaning and have no other purpose than to make some absurd, inane, or insipid nonsense sound or look profound or important.

Whereas I would agree that academics are prone to use most of the examples given in order to artificially inflate their importance - academic philosophy being as useless as poetry - most of these words, though a few may sound abstract, do have very precise meanings when considered etymologically and unavoidable in many conversations not considered philosophical or only partly so. A number of words you pointed out as examples are in fact quite common in normal usage; others, less so.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:38 pm Seriously, I suggest you take an adult with you whenever you go shopping. You are a born mark.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:36 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 4:05 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 2:56 pm
You to cashier: Where's my change? You gave me nothing.

Cashier to you: I gave you everything. Nothing is just another word for everything.

Suddenly, dawn breaks on Marblehead.

That's good example of everyday language. Philosophical jargon is explicit and precise. Academic disciplines usually have their own jargons.

Jargon does not excuse saying what is not true.

I'm very familiar with academic, "jargon." It is all intentional obscurantism and obtuse language intended to sound profound, but it is only obfuscation couched in undefined and meaningless words that one, "kinda sorta," understands, all meant to put over some nonsense called philosophy or some social/political abomination. Academic jargon is the exact opposite of scientific jargon. The purpose of scientific jargon is to make it possible to identify and explicate the unique concepts of science. The purpose of academic jargon is create pseudo-concepts with intentionally obscure and confusing meanings that can be used to put over just anything.

The moment you begin to read or hear something infected with academic jargon, such as, "paradigm," "dialectic," "trope," "egoism," "core commitments," "synergy," "emergence," "holism," "gestalt," "hegemony," "coherence," "critical thinking," "model," "mode," "perception," "peer review," "rubric," "transcend," "normative," "altruistic," "heteronormative," "nadir," "telelogical," "gestalt," "predicated," "redolent of," "kitsch," "post modern," "neoclassic," "gouache," "homiletics," "linguistics," or "paleo...." you know what you are reading is either a lie or worthless.

Sure, most of those words have legitimate meanings and uses outside academia, but when they come from some academic's mouth, pen, or keyboard, they are devoid of meaning and have no other purpose than to make some absurd, inane, or insipid nonsense sound or look profound or important.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:32 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:38 pm Seriously, I suggest you take an adult with you whenever you go shopping. You are a born mark.

I already know that 2+2=4 is a sure fact.

I think I will be ok when I go shopping alone, but thanks for the advice.

Now, remind me again, what are we actually talking about, was it consciousness by any chance?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 1:25 pm I have no idea what you are talking about.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:49 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:36 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 4:05 pm

That's good example of everyday language. Philosophical jargon is explicit and precise. Academic disciplines usually have their own jargons.

Jargon does not excuse saying what is not true.

I'm very familiar with academic, "jargon." It is all intentional obscurantism and obtuse language intended to sound profound, but it is only obfuscation couched in undefined and meaningless words that one, "kinda sorta," understands, all meant to put over some nonsense called philosophy or some social/political abomination. Academic jargon is the exact opposite of scientific jargon. The purpose of scientific jargon is to make it possible to identify and explicate the unique concepts of science. The purpose of academic jargon is create pseudo-concepts with intentionally obscure and confusing meanings that can be used to put over just anything.

The moment you begin to read or hear something infected with academic jargon, such as, "paradigm," "dialectic," "trope," "egoism," "core commitments," "synergy," "emergence," "holism," "gestalt," "hegemony," "coherence," "critical thinking," "model," "mode," "perception," "peer review," "rubric," "transcend," "normative," "altruistic," "heteronormative," "nadir," "telelogical," "gestalt," "predicated," "redolent of," "kitsch," "post modern," "neoclassic," "gouache," "homiletics," "linguistics," or "paleo...." you know what you are reading is either a lie or worthless.

Sure, most of those words have legitimate meanings and uses outside academia, but when they come from some academic's mouth, pen, or keyboard, they are devoid of meaning and have no other purpose than to make some absurd, inane, or insipid nonsense sound or look profound or important.

Whether you like it or not many good men work in academia, and try to make the world a better place, and precisely are ranged against obscurantism.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:49 am You are deliberately limiting your options by condemning jargons. You yourself could learn jargons if you wanted to, and then you could argue with specialists.

I don't know what you work at but most specialisms including manual ones use jargons.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:21 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:49 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:36 pm
Jargon does not excuse saying what is not true.

I'm very familiar with academic, "jargon." It is all intentional obscurantism and obtuse language intended to sound profound, but it is only obfuscation couched in undefined and meaningless words that one, "kinda sorta," understands, all meant to put over some nonsense called philosophy or some social/political abomination. Academic jargon is the exact opposite of scientific jargon. The purpose of scientific jargon is to make it possible to identify and explicate the unique concepts of science. The purpose of academic jargon is create pseudo-concepts with intentionally obscure and confusing meanings that can be used to put over just anything.

The moment you begin to read or hear something infected with academic jargon, such as, "paradigm," "dialectic," "trope," "egoism," "core commitments," "synergy," "emergence," "holism," "gestalt," "hegemony," "coherence," "critical thinking," "model," "mode," "perception," "peer review," "rubric," "transcend," "normative," "altruistic," "heteronormative," "nadir," "telelogical," "gestalt," "predicated," "redolent of," "kitsch," "post modern," "neoclassic," "gouache," "homiletics," "linguistics," or "paleo...." you know what you are reading is either a lie or worthless.

Sure, most of those words have legitimate meanings and uses outside academia, but when they come from some academic's mouth, pen, or keyboard, they are devoid of meaning and have no other purpose than to make some absurd, inane, or insipid nonsense sound or look profound or important.

Whether you like it or not many good men work in academia, and try to make the world a better place, and precisely are ranged against obscurantism.

Unfortunately the term, "academia," is a huge umbrella and a great deal falls under it, including those institutions that specialize in STEM disciplines (a "jargon," acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) which are not what I'm referring to as, "academia." I'm sure there are many, "good men," involved in the stem areas of education.

As for everything else that falls under the rubric of academia, it is worse then ignorance which turns much true knowledge into specious nonsense such as sociology, evolutionary psychology (and a host of other [pseudo-sciences], environmentalism [which began as ecology], geo-politics, philosophy, and religion, for example. Those who receive money for promoting such absurdities are not good men.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:49 am You are deliberately limiting your options by condemning jargons. You yourself could learn jargons if you wanted to, and then you could argue with specialists.

I don't know what you work at but most specialisms including manual ones use jargons.

It's a bit presumptuous to make judgments while admitting, "you don't know," don't you think?

I never repudiated or disparaged the use of jargon at all. Among other things I was a technical writer, and managed technical publications for several IT, Telephony, and electronics firms which required the use of language and terms specific to those fields (i.e. jargon). Such terms are not only well defined and specific, but must be to fulfill the purpose of make the concepts they identified useful.

Every industry and discipline has their own, "jargon," which is valuable to those fields, but much jargon is just the opposite, not intended to make ideas cogent, but to obscure clear understanding or to promote pseud-concepts that mean nothing, like those in theology, most religions, most philosophy, what is wrongly called the, "humanities," and all of academia that is not STEM.