An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics

The Rational Argumentator ^ | January 5, 2004 | G. Stolyarov II

[VadeRetro]

Premise I- “The Code Premise”

Disappointing to hear Ayn Rand speaking in tongues like some bureaucrat writing a managment plan.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Good point. The written language is not a reflection of the spoken language.

[Petronski]

Take it up with George Bernard Shaw.

[G. Stolyarov II]

"It appears to me that the original (well, maybe not so) poster has fled the arena, taking his single orthographic change with him in his back pocket."

I did not: I had been on a business trip to Georgia during the past four days, and was far too involved to access the internet. I intend to refute your tongue-and-cheek assertions.

[MineralMan]

"I had been on a business trip to Georgia during the past four days, and was far too involved to access the internet. I intend to refute your tongue-and-cheek assertions."

OK by me. However, you might want to start a new thread. This one's several days old and folks don't generally come back to old threads.

[G. Stolyarov II]

"Dilletantism is not the same as objectivism. Ayn Rand would be disappointed."

Every great man in history had been a dilletant. Aristotle, in addition to his filosofy, was a scientist, politician, and a universal tutor to Alexander the Great. Isaac Newton was both a fysicist and a mathematician. Gottfried Leibniz had been a filosofer, mathematician, and scientist, while Frederick the Great was a strategist, politician, filosofer, composer, and literateur. Napoleon intensely interested himself in archeology, mathematics (especially topografy), and Enlightenment thought. Even Alexander Borodin was a chemist by profession. As for Ayn Rand herself, her university education was primarily in history, and her original profession was that of a screenwriter. She later diversified into novel writing and a formalization of her filosofy. The list can go on for pages.

If you continue to make assertions chastizing exceptional dilletantism, you will exhibit the same entrenched mediocrity displayed by Professor Patrick Silk in my mini-play, "The Inexperienced:"

"First of all, you must specialize. The era of universal geniuses, dilettantes into multiple fields, has gone the way of Leonardo, Leibniz, Goethe, and Borodin. It has died over a century ago. And don't you think that any variant of living has not already been tried, analyzed, and assimilated or rejected by the common wisdom on that basis. People have developed specializations and set, standardized, unidirectional career paths from centuries of experience. Learn to adapt to and accept your findings. Do you really think that, however ingenious you may be, you can change or even challenge that accumulation of the collective will? You, who are inevitably a product a product of that will?"

THAT ideology is what your posts have strongly linked to.

[G. Stolyarov II]

"OK by me. However, you might want to start a new thread. This one's several days old and folks don't generally come back to old threads."

I shall try to establish such a post shortly.

[MineralMan]

"If you continue to make assertions chastizing exceptional dilletantism, you will exhibit the same entrenched mediocrity displayed by Professor Patrick Silk in my mini-play, "The Inexperienced:"
"

Amusing. I know a number of polymaths, including some who are quite expert in some of their fields of interest. I know far more who are expert in none.

There is nothing wrong with this. Indeed, having strong interests in many disciplines is an excellent thing. I, myself, have more than a novice's knowledge in many fields.

However, I do not, and will never, hold myself up as an expert at any of thos many disciplines. I do not display my mediocre musical compositions, write on subjects in which others have far more expertise, nor attempt to pretend that any of the languages in which I am competent are languages in which I am fluent.

I do not propose new theorems in particle physics, mineralogy, molecular biology, or biochemistry, even though I can discuss those subjects with experts in the fields and understand scholarly writings in any of them.

Dilletantism is not defined by someone who gains knowledge in many fields. It is defined by the person who attempts to display that knowledge under the pretense of mastery.

Your orthographical propositions demonstrate dilletantism because they duplicate (and only partially) the work of professionals in that field. You demonstrate little understanding of previous efforts toward a new orthography.

I visited your site and read a number of your writings. I listened to your compositions. I gave your efforts a fair trial. I discount them as great thinking.

You needn't specialize, but you run a serious risk of ridicule if you attempt to pass yourself off as an expert in fields where you are an amateur.

Best wishes to you, though.