EPTPoof - Page 3
| Blogs > Azera |
|
RogerX
New Zealand3180 Posts
| ||
|
RedJustice
United States1004 Posts
On April 02 2012 18:29 Azera wrote: Ah , I guess the fact that we come from completely different cultures slipped my mind. The thing is, with all his involvement in all these co-curricular activities, it means that he is very capable (reason why he has so many). They don't let you get involved with so many things if they think you can handle it. I don't disagree that these things probably mean he is very smart. He has good time management skills as well no doubt. I don't know if you are purposely avoiding my point that these abilities have no relevance to the fact that he may have misinterpreted your intentions, or if you honestly believe that these prove he is infallible and can't possibly have made a mistake? I am not following your train of thought here at all. EDIT: I just want to reiterate, I am not trying to troll or be rude, I seriously don't understand the point you are trying to make. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On April 02 2012 18:31 RogerX wrote: Not worth keeping if he acts like that really. Hi RogerX! Thanks On April 02 2012 18:32 RedJustice wrote: I don't disagree that these things probably mean he is very smart. He has good time management skills as well no doubt. I don't know if you are purposely avoiding my point that these abilities have no relevance to the fact that he may have misinterpreted your intentions, or if you honestly believe that these prove he is infallible and can't possibly have made a mistake? I am not following your train of thought here at all. Oh it seems like I mis-read/interpreted your post  I highly doubt he would misinterpret my actions as a form of mockery. Sorry! | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On April 02 2012 17:15 Precipice wrote: When someone tells you, "I know what I want to say but I can't think of the words for it," they are wrong. All knowledge exists on top of words and symbols. If you cannot speak with clarity or precision then you do not *know* what you are trying to say. Therefore you are either using the words to fulfill a sense of self and a specific identity, or you simply do not understand what you are saying. It is obviously the former. No, if you limit your knowledge to your vocabulary then you are seriously maiming yourself intellectually. Words and symbols are not a part of your minds natural syntax. The translation of pictures, feelings and emotions into words and symbols isn't perfect. Often the meaning gets distorted or large parts are left out simply because our vocabularies aren't exhaustive enough to describe everything which goes on inside our minds. But isn't it at least futile to try to communicate thoughts for which you can't find adequate translations? No, because that is a good way to expand your vocabulary and strengthening your ability to express yourself. On April 02 2012 18:27 Precipice wrote: Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation. Knowledge thrives under communication, I agree, but that doesn't mean that all knowledge depends on it. A language doesn't help you think, it only helps in sharing knowledge. Said knowledge can help you think however. | ||
|
RedJustice
United States1004 Posts
| ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On April 02 2012 18:44 RedJustice wrote: Oh ok, lol. I didn't think you would try to make that argument, but I was pretty confused by what you were trying to say otherwise. That said-- it seems like you may be leaning towards ditching him, but if you really did respect him previously as much as you say you did, you should seriously consider double checking with him about why he said that to you. If it was just all a misunderstanding, great you get to keep a friend you really enjoy and respect. If he's just an ass, well then you'll never wonder. Imo though, there is just no downside to a clarification in any kind of relationship. As you get older, or already if you are observant and interested in the relationships that form around you, you will see that most problems and fights between people happen because of misunderstandings. Ok, will try to clarify. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On April 02 2012 18:27 Precipice wrote: @Makra (and the other guy who disagreed with me) I'm only going to respond to this once since I do not wish to derail this thread. Infants acquire language and understanding through the establishment of heuristics (which translate into symbols). These symbols allow them to develop more knowledge etc etc. The rest is really just symbolic interactionism. If you want to dive into a debate about the legitimacy of symbolic interactionism etc, sure, okay, I guess that's fine. But if you do so, please give me something from your quest. I have suggested a simple point. Writing and speaking are a display of one's ability to organize thoughts. Tell me: how can you understand a complex philosophical point or argument without organizing your thoughts? Further, how can you transmit this information to others without this ability. You cannot. Knowledge grows through interaction. How can you have a theory of knowledge which does not accept language - communication itself - as fundamental to its growth and continuation. If you want more to think about... go do some research on the human organism before the bicameral brain. Lastly, please do not try to rip this apart through some tautological debate over the word "language" - the counter-argument is flawed and I'm not going to respond to it anyways. As amenable to derailing the thread and threadgoers seem, I agree; but I just couldn't let it go unchallenged, and I know how you feel... Maybe another time, or if you change your mind I'm sure I can make it worth your while. + Show Spoiler + I feel like we've argued before elsewhere, but I'm too tired to try and hunt it down. Eh. redjustice is doing an excellent job presenting the alternate side, or the primary parts of it, and that is really valuable. It's worth more than just passing consideration even if you have the best of intentions. Nonetheless, what is the ardent intellectual supposed to do? I hesitate to put it this way because it gets conflated with the misunderstood artist cliche, but: what if honest introspection leads you believe that what other people are passionate about are really lesser pursuits, to you? Do you try to hide that from them (which is implicit condescension)? Do you try to convert them? Do you ignore the divide and try to fake a connection? I would suggest that you can always find a grain of interest in any person or pursuit, and it should be a personal challenge to make yourself compatible to these granules of purpose which you might otherwise pass by. Exercise your empathy and it will repay you. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9173 Posts
He's a high school kid calling you out for faux-intellectualism whilst writing like a pompous douche | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On April 02 2012 18:49 Scarecrow wrote: He's a high school kid calling you out for faux-intellectualism whilst writing like a pompous douche HAHA! | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On April 02 2012 18:49 Scarecrow wrote: He's a high school kid calling you out for faux-intellectualism whilst writing like a pompous douche The difference is that his rambling were intelligible whilst the statement he responded to were not. Thus it is possible for him to have mastered the university lingo since we have no evidence to the contrary. As such he is not necessarily a hypocrite. | ||
|
Rinny
United States616 Posts
| ||
ImbaTosS
United Kingdom1716 Posts
| ||
|
RedJustice
United States1004 Posts
| ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On April 02 2012 19:37 RedJustice wrote: Oh btw, I was curious if English is his primary language and he just talks like that, or if he has learned it in an academic context. Unless there is a definition of entreat I am not aware of (there may be) or I am misreading it, he has used the word entirely incorrectly. That last sentence just seems off. Yes, English is his first language. Come to think of it, entreat was used wrongly. hehe. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On April 02 2012 19:37 RedJustice wrote: Oh btw, I was curious if English is his primary language and he just talks like that, or if he has learned it in an academic context. Unless there is a definition of entreat I am not aware of (there may be) or I am misreading it, he has used the word entirely incorrectly. That last sentence just seems off. I and probably most others tend to adjust the language according to the context. If these two tend to speak this way to each other it is nothing strange about it. Also, the fact that he used a word that wrongly means that he didn't put much thought into those sentences, he wouldn't have found that word by looking through synonyms and if he looked it up he would see that it didn't fit so he got to have misunderstood it all by himself. To me it looks like he meant to say "comply with" or "defer to". On April 02 2012 19:20 ImbaTosS wrote: Yup, the word "pompous" keeps cropping up here, for good reason. That reply looks like a self-serving attempt at intellectual superiority. I mean, really, what a complete arse. Tell him to stuff his attitude, and stuff his pointlessly long-winded sentences. They don't make him look clever, just like an absolute try hard, despite what he clearly thinks of himself. He also thinks people hate him for this kind of thing, because they're jealous of his "intellect". Also complete rubbish. What he has written is a clear sign of somebody who thinks they are far more clever, and more revered for it than they in fact are. It is interesting how much you think that you can extract about someone just by looking at their choice of words. | ||
BroOd
Austin10833 Posts
| ||
|
TheKwas
Iceland372 Posts
On April 02 2012 17:56 Dagobert wrote: Well, looks like he was spot on. Besides not-copy-pasting stuff people post on the internet (especially if it's faux intellectualism!), you can read and apply this when having written conversations with people: http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-Edition/dp/0205747469/ . Hide nested quote - The demystification of the present (nonsense) is the precondition of praxis, which (ambiguous) is necessarily future-oriented (unsubstantiated claim) and would be impossible if the future were wholly unknowable (double negative, unsubstantiated claim). This is not something you can discuss, it's nonsense. If you genuinely want to make a point, or steal someone else's point, you present a case and an argument. 1) Define an actor ("We need to" - by using 'need to' you also replace the useless "precondition" with a useful construction). 2) Define what you mean by "demystifying the present". 3) Replace "praxis" with an action that can be performed by the actor, because as it stands, this is meaningless. 4) Resolve the ambiguity. It is rarely a good idea to use "which" after having introduced several nouns. 5) Present arguments ("since...", "because...") for every claim you make. 6) Use affirmatives instead of multiple negatives, otherwise... "Except when expenses do not exceed $250, the Insured may not refuse to provide the Insurer with receipts, checks or other evidence of costs." (example taken from Style) I'm quoting this because it is the best response so far in this thread. The quote you posted was complete nonsense, especially without context (and even in context, I would argue that whoever wrote it is terrible at writing). There's no defending just how bad of a sentence that is. Whatever sam!zdat's excuses, that's not proper jargon and that's not how even experts talk to each other. Perhaps that's how pompous experts--calling themselves "postmodernists--talk to each other, but no one else considers them experts on anything, and for good reason. More importantly, I think you should ask yourself why your 'friend' lashed out like that. He mentions that this isn't the first time he was bothered by your questions, so obviously you've asked him similar questions that he found annoying and you just never noticed how you were bothering. Instead of using everyone's "what a tool" comments to make yourself feel better, I suggest actually making an effort at improving your body and emotion readings on other people. Clearly, you missed a lot of signs of annoyance from him and he felt he needed to make a pretty strong statement so that you would realize how much you were annoying him. That's probably your fault rather than his. Judging not only from this thread, but other blogs you've made, I get the strong impression that you don't have very good social skills. There's plenty of ways to improve your social skills: Learn about Body Language, Conversation/Interview methods, Social Dynamics, etc. It might sound extreme, but look up some of the resources that people with Asparagus' Syndrome use to improve their social skills. Maybe taking a more 'logical' approach to understanding other people will be useful. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Hd8a3.png) | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On April 02 2012 20:39 TheKwas wrote: It might sound extreme, but look up some of the resources that people with Asparagus' Syndrome use to improve their social skills. Maybe taking a more 'logical' approach to understanding other people will be useful. Yeah, this is a good site: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asparagus_Syndrome Another good idea could be to look up Aspergers syndrome instead. | ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
On April 02 2012 20:46 Klockan3 wrote: Yeah, this is a good site: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Asparagus_Syndrome Another good idea could be to look up Aspergers syndrome instead. LOL I just noticed that. LMAO | ||
| ||
