Philosophy Now Forum

Derrick Grover considers the communication of contemplation.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/107/Th ... munication

Philosophy Now wrote:Derrick Grover considers the communication of contemplation.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/107/Th ... munication

"So I leave you with the following questions: Are we communicating in the most efficient manner, and if not, what can we do about it? For example, would it be beneficial for philosophical texts to be written so that the theme of a sentence is presented first, and then qualifications to that theme listed in a logical order? It would be more difficult for the author, who would need extra discipline to clarify the thought, but easier for the reader to comprehend."

Grover:

My impression of some philosophy papers is that they are the products of a wandering mind moving backwards and forwards as whim takes them. Could such minds be usefully disciplined to make clear-cut points, divided into sub-sections if necessary, before wandering off on another tangent...

...Clarification by examples is recognised as a good way of explaining difficult concepts...

I agree, examples can help explain difficult concepts. They can also illustrate any kind of discussion.
So, exactly what 'philosophical papers' has Grover read to justify his 'impression' of undisciplined philosophical minds?

The best way to achieve clarity is when you try to explain your ponderings to a good friend. You use his reactions to modify your way of presenting the material.

One friend is not enough, the best would be to do the same with many friends.
If many people have the same difficulty grasping certain points in the argumentation then the author knows what needs improving (better, formulation, examples etc.).

duszek wrote:The best way to achieve clarity is when you try to explain your ponderings to a good friend. You use his reactions to modify your way of presenting the material.

One friend is not enough, the best would be to do the same with many friends.
If many people have the same difficulty grasping certain points in the argumentation then the author knows what needs improving (better, formulation, examples etc.).

Einstein said it better
'If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'

And it doesn't have to be a 'friend', does it ? Unless you want to count 'foes' or opponents as friends...yes, they might indeed challenge us to raise our game.

It does not have to be a friend, that´s true.

But if you try to communicate some wisdom it helps if you do it towards someone you like and consider worthy of it.

The communicative setting is better if the two like each other.