47 replies to this topic

[susmariosep]

Language is universal with humans.


I am working from the standpoint that dense writings are done in language and that language is a common capacity of man.

Dense writings are done with words, as I said earlier, composed of words just as salads are composed of vegetables.

That's why language experts could undecipher the scratches left in stones from the oldest manifestations of written communications from fellow humans of thousands of years back: they look for the vegetables in those salads.


That's why I think it is not impossible for me to find the sense and nonsense in dense writings, namely, because it's done in language and I know language; and besides I am limiting myself to dense writings done in English which I also know, even though it's not my mother tongue -- modesty aside I think I can outperform many a member here whose mother tongue is English, in English reading comprehension tests.


Extemporaneously now, this is what I plan to do among many other procedures -- but I am always troubled by the prospect of putting in time and labor into an endeavor which is not really of any profit to me, except at the end of the day to find out that it's exactly what I fear, a little of common sense wisdom and a lot of nonsense, namely, in the dense writings from abstruse philosophers.

The latest procedure I am toying with is to do what we used to work at in school in analysis of a text.

1. Look for full sentences in a text, those lines starting conventionally with a word where the first letter of the first word is capitalized and the last word is suffixed with a period, i.e., a dot (.).

Example: Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire - seen in racist stereotypes, statements, jokes, myths - are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed. (Refer to that excerpt of dense writing reproduced at the bottom of this post.)

2, Break one sentence at a time into component and/or subordinate, clauses.

Example, from the above full sentence:

(a) Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire (snipped) are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed.

(b) [which are] - seen in racist stereotypes, statements, jokes, myths -

3. In every clause, look for its subject and its predicate.



Sorry, I have to leave now, to look up some plumbing components for the water tank I had guys set up in a tower for my home, what with El Nino coming. I will be back.

Before I go, Nate, thanks for all your trouble trying to teach me how to understand dense writings. Can we just proceed as in school trying to analyze a text... as above? Just like maybe proving the pudding by eating? But I will be back.

Susma

Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire - seen in racist stereotypes, statements, jokes, myths - are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed. They are the effects of a disavowal that denies the differences of the other but produces in its stead forms of authority and multiple belief that alienate the assumptions of ‘civil’ discourse. If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses Of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to ‘normalize’ formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality. The ambivalence of colonial authority repeatedly turns from mimicry - a difference that is almost nothing but not quite - to menace - a difference that is almost total but not quite. And in that other scene of colonial power, where history turns to farce and presence to ‘a part’ can be seen the twin figures of narcissism and paranoia that repeat furiously, uncontrollably.

[justinb]

he was wondering whether I was being unkind to him.

I was wondering if you were being unkind to Infernity.

[susmariosep]

More analysis of text from lessons in school.


Before anything else, thanks Justinb, for your clarification of my mistaken understanding about your perception of my being unkind to you; you really thought I was probably unkind to Infernity. Do you have to cultivate a new base of knowledge to understand the preceding sentence?

Anyway let me rewrite it because my first draft spontaneously done is not simple and straightforward. Here below:

Thanks Justinb for your clarification: actually you were thinking that I could have been unkind to Infernity; I am glad you didn't think I was unkind to you.


Now, back to sentence analysis as I have learned it in school, in order to unravel the thoughts of a writer in his text, specially the more difficult ones owing to failure or incapacity or malicious refusal to write according to common logic of clear and simple expression notwithstanding that a thought can be very profound and subtle.

The latest procedure I am toying with is to do what we used to work at in school in analysis of a text.

1. Look for full sentences in a text, those lines starting conventionally with a word where the first letter of the first word is capitalized and the last word is suffixed with a period, i.e., a dot (.).

Example: Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire - seen in racist stereotypes, statements, jokes, myths - are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed. (Refer to that excerpt of dense writing reproduced at the bottom of this post.)

2, Break one sentence at a time into component and/or subordinate, clauses.

Example, from the above full sentence:

(a) Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire (snipped) are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed.

(b) [which are] - seen in racist stereotypes, statements, jokes, myths -

3. In every clause, look for its subject and its predicate.

Resuming and continuing therefore:

3. In every clause, look for its subject and its predicate.

Example,starting with the main clause: Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire (snipped) are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed.

The subject part is this line: Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire...

The predicate part is this line: ...are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed.

4. Look for the noun or pronoun that is the essential subject itself of the subject part and look for the verb that is the essential predicate of the predicate part.

Example, put in bold are the essential subject and the essential predicate of the subject and predicate lines in the main clause:

The subject part is this line: Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire...

The predicate part is this line: ...are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed.

5. Write the essential sentence in its barebone components, thus:

Articulations are not caught.


Please proceed to the next post for a continuation of our analysis.


Susma

[Kalepha]

Actually, Susma, it seems to me you're on the right track now. Subject-predicate analysis is in fact an essential tool found in discussions of philosophical logic. If I may suggest something, study some introductory textbooks in symbolic logic, philosophical logic, and contemporary linguistic theory. I think it would really help, and no background knowledge is required (except, of course, a basic grasp of English, which you already have) if you get the right books.

[susmariosep]

Applying provisionally common meanings to words used.


Resuming our analysis:

6. Now, start asking yourself questions to know things about the subject of the sentence and to know things about the target of the predicate, from the words used by the text author in order to arrive at his whole picture in the sentence.

Start by trying to know the meanings of words used by the author, thus:

such -- this kind of

articulations -- expressions by words

Expressions by words of what? reality and desire

reality -- what is

desire -- what I want

Articulations or expressions, what kind or how made? -- contradictory or made contradictorily

Contradictory -- yes and no at the same time and on the same basis, for example, this sentence: "The physical height of the six footer is five-nine".

are -- linking verb of identity, to be, third person plural present tense

not -- negation

caught -- as in being held in chains or by a hook or locked in a cage or seized in a trap

doubtful -- uncertain, unsure

circle -- a geometric figure consisting of a circumference, for example, the outline of a full moon

return -- going back to where you started

repressed -- rendered unable to move about, deprived of freedom


7. Now rewrite in other and more concrete words the author's clause: Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed.

Thus: These manners of simultaneously expressing in words yes and no to what is and what you want are not confined in a cage of an uncertain circumference to where beings deprived of movement or freedom come back.



The most damnable fault is with editors who allowed such drivels to be included in supposedly creditable journals or put in book form and marketed by again supposedly reputable publishing houses.

But it is all de rigueur in this brotherhood of obscurantist diarrhea of vocabulary.

As I said earlier:

Extemporaneously now, this is what I plan to do among many other procedures -- but I am always troubled by the prospect of putting in time and labor into an endeavor which is not really of any profit to me, except at the end of the day to find out that it's exactly what I fear, a little of common sense wisdom and a lot of nonsense, namely, in the dense writings from abstruse philosophers.

But there is not even one minuscule bit of common wisdom or ordinary mundane insight in that clause which I have just analyzed: Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed.

There is nothing of sense, it's all nonsense.


I would like to invite everyone visiting this thread, starting with Justinb, Nate, Jaguar, Cosmos, Macdog and other philosophers here and also ordinary intelligent people having English for a working language but specially the latter, to send me by the Personal Message function of this forum what you can understand from that sentence.

Then we will find out how many if any different understandings of that sentence there be from intelligent and English using people -- that make sense.

Susma

[susmariosep]

The complete sentences from excerpt of dense writing.


Here are the complete sentences of that excerpt of dense writing (complete reproudction at the bottom of the page).


1. Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire - seen in racist stereotypes, statements, jokes, myths - are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed.

2. They are the effects of a disavowal that denies the differences of the other but produces in its stead forms of authority and multiple belief that alienate the assumptions of ‘civil’ discourse.

3. If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses Of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to ‘normalize’ formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality.

4. The ambivalence of colonial authority repeatedly turns from mimicry - a difference that is almost nothing but not quite - to menace - a difference that is almost total but not quite.

5. And in that other scene of colonial power, where history turns to farce and presence to ‘a part’ can be seen the twin figures of narcissism and paranoia that repeat furiously, uncontrollably.


Can anyone make any sense of each of the complete sentences above?


Susma

Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire - seen in racist stereotypes, statements, jokes, myths - are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed. They are the effects of a disavowal that denies the differences of the other but produces in its stead forms of authority and multiple belief that alienate the assumptions of ‘civil’ discourse. If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses Of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to ‘normalize’ formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality. The ambivalence of colonial authority repeatedly turns from mimicry - a difference that is almost nothing but not quite - to menace - a difference that is almost total but not quite. And in that other scene of colonial power, where history turns to farce and presence to ‘a part’ can be seen the twin figures of narcissism and paranoia that repeat furiously, uncontrollably.

[Kalepha]

While it’s still important to get some of the basics out of the way, for this particular excerpt, it also would be necessary to know what is meant by “other” and to have some background knowledge of the colonial-postcolonial debate.

Nothing is nonsense until you know it’s nonsense, not when your knee-jerk reactions have you believe something is nonsense.

Edited by Nate Barna, 27 April 2005 - 03:04 AM.

[susmariosep]

How to write a research paper.


I think writers who do write in the manner of the excerpt I am dealing with, should put some kind of classification marking in their 'dense' writings, like the following:

This piece of writing is intended for readers who are conversant with the historical times and intellectual vicissitudes of the background I am treating of (here, name the time and place and segment of elitist mankind covered in the writing).

If however they are aware that their writing can be an object of curiosity and sincere attempts at understanding from general patronage, maybe they should go back to their college notes or even highschool, or retrieve their manuals on how to write a research paper or make a book report and similar guides to writing for intelligent but non-primed or non-conditioned or non-briefed people to read.

So, from my memory on how to write a research report, roughly:

1. Set forth rightaway what you intend to tell and maybe convince your readers about, make it specific and concrete, like for example with a title: The British East India Company and Opium Trade (1800 - 1860): commerce and morality.

2. Set forth your aims in the study.

3. Give a brief historical background.

4. Make a list of vocabulary to better understand the paper.

5. Do a survey of extant works and show how yours is different.

6. Explain your methods and special approaches if any.

And finally it goes without saying that you should adhere strictly to an established manual of clear, concise, and precision writing in English.

I am sure that if dense philosophical writers would just observe these very easy guidelines in their writings, people like me would not accuse them of malicious logorrhea, i.e., diarrhea of verbiage.


Susma

While it’s still important to get some of the basics out of the way, for this particular excerpt, it also would be necessary to know what is meant by “other” and to have some background knowledge of the colonial-postcolonial debate.

Nothing is nonsense until you know it’s nonsense, not when your knee-jerk reactions have you believe something is nonsense.

[susmariosep]

Justinb says to pay attention to the words.


I have reproduced at the bottom of this post the two messages of Justinb earlier on his 'take' of that dense excerpt, and also his directives on how to derive an understanding of the text.

This is the advice from Justinb I find most easy to carry out; because writings even dense writings are composed of words as salad is composed of vegetables. If we don't attend to the words what then do we give attention to in order to justifiably derive the thoughts of an author in a piece of verbal text?

The best way to understand such texts is too have a thorough understanding of the words involved in thoses texts. It may seem daunting at times, but non-the-less quite doable and ultimately required and quite helpful later on.

I have carried out exactly that piece of advice, and I honestly without purposely from spite being obstructionist must confess that I can't make head nor tail of that excerpt.

Maybe it is owing to my dense mind that I cannot fathom the thoughts of its author; but I have testimonies from others more intellectually keen and better users of English than myself, who also admit their being at a loss as to what the author is driving at with a profusion of words pointing in opposite directions, leaving them in suspended intellection.


Addressing Justinb:

Honestly, Justinb, you really can read all those things you tell me about, from the words of that excerpt?

Or are you reading that excerpt like you would be seeing things in a spontaneous Rorschach and yourself acting as your own Rorschach authority of Rorschach hermeneutics? -- meaning, reading what is already in your mind, independent even of the Rorschach or the text in question?

At most the text gives you some cue to get you started in your own mind reading?

Susma



Earlier messages from Justinb:

Posted: Apr 21, 2005

QUOTE
Anyway, Justinb, how are you getting on with your Latin lessons?
UNQUOTE

I haven't called a church yet, I need to start that soon.

QUOTE
Tell me honestly, the excerpt I reproduced earlier, can you make any sense from it? And suppose you want to really analyze it, how would you go about doing it?
UNQUOTE

Yes, but I will need some time to do it, and there might be different meanings.... so I will try to sometime this week and post it here.


Edited today

I think he is saying that when “civil” discourse is rooted in desire rather then reality that wishes of reality emerge in the form of racist stereotypes, statements, jokes, myths. But, when reality is considered significantly then problems with one's belief system start to emerge; guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, etc... in order to, as he put it, '‘normalize’ formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational.' The narcissism comes from the hatred of reality as seen in pseudo-intellectualism.... and the paranoia is, of course, a product of knowing that one has deluded oneself.

Basically, we hate certain aspects of reality because it is seen as a threat to one's well being and we slowly start to delude are selves until we become narcissistic (a form of compensating for the fact that we are not as great as we think we are) and paranoid (constantly afraid that something might happen to our belief system and to our image of oneself).

I probably missed one or two minor details, but I believe that is the jist of it. I hope I have helped, and more importantly... that I am correct in my relatively quick assesment.

This post has been edited by justinb on Apr 21, 2005

Posted: Apr 22, 2005

The reason why philosophers right in such dense ways is to communicate an idea about a specific situation as precisely as humanly possible.

Their general ideas can be summed up into a sentence or two, but their exact thoughts about a particular situation cannot.

The brain does not builds many connections by using succinct phrasings and words.

It also delivers an exact meaning, that cannot be mistaken for something else in another person's mind. All that is required is a fine understanding of the language in question.

Another reason why people right that way, is to retain from using confusing and barbaric words (that are emotionally charged or somehow biased) that can be easily misinterpreted by anyone. Certain words elicit scientific meanings that clearly define a certain phenomenon more precisely then most words used for that specific phenomenon.

QUOTE
Anyway, would you like to tell me how you arrived at the understanding you did come to of the excerpt. I am thinking of working out some system for people like me to easily and quickly unravel the meanings of such kinds of texts, with the use of a computer word processor.
UNQUOTE

The best way to understand such texts is too have a thorough understanding of the words involved in thoses texts. It may seem daunting at times, but non-the-less quite doable and ultimately required and quite helpful later on.

[susmariosep]

Starting well and ending up badly.


Here is an excerpt from a popular writer on philosophical thinkers. I think he started well but ended up badly in terms of clear, brief, and precision writing. In other words, he began writing without dense-ness but ended up almost in a very dense vein.

It is common to assume that we are dealing with a highly intelligent book when we cease to understand it. Profound ideas cannot, after all, be explained in the language of children. Yet the association between difficulty and profundity might less generously be described as a manifestation in the literary sphere of a perversity familiar from emotional life, where people who are mysterious and elusive can inspire a respect in modest minds that reliable and clear ones do not.

Here are the three complete sentences from the excerpt:

1. It is common to assume that we are dealing with a highly intelligent book when we cease to understand it.

2. Profound ideas cannot, after all, be explained in the language of children.

3. Yet the association between difficulty and profundity might less generously be described as a manifestation in the literary sphere of a perversity familiar from emotional life, where people who are mysterious and elusive can inspire a respect in modest minds that reliable and clear ones do not.

It is the third lengthy sentence that causes me dismay, and other men like me in the street.

What do the visitors here say about the third sentence?


Why did the author in the third sentence decide to indulge in dense-ness, when he could and did write without dense-ness in the first two sentences. He could just as well continue with shorter sentences.

Maybe he forgot that he should write clearly, concisely, and with precision, and unconscioulsy lapsed into the style of the dense brotherhood.

This lapse is unforgivable, because he had all the time and chance to read and rewrite that line and make the thoughts in that line clear, concise, and precise -- without dense-ness.

And his editor is also responsible for that line of dense writing.


More probably they both thought that unless you resort to such a dense style of writing every so often, people might fall into the suspicion that

Profound ideas cannot, after all, be explained in the language of children. (Sentence #2)

It is common to assume that we are dealing with a highly intelligent book when we cease to understand it. (Sentence #1)


Yet I must remind myself that I am not an highly intelligent person and my command of English is mediocre.


Susma

[Kalepha]

I think that last statement is perfectly clear. There, all the author is saying is that the motivations for writing densely is analogous to the motivations of those who decide to be eccentric in order to try to shock or impress simpler minds.

[susmariosep]

Not to communicate but to confuse?


On the assumption of good faith from your part, are you Nate telling us here that dense writers really don't have anything useful to say to us, their only purpose is to perplex us wondering whether we might not be up to their height nor down to their depth, while they wickedly laugh inside themselves that they are so devilishly and deviously enjoying their fake celebrity of originality and subtlety?

I think that last statement is perfectly clear. There, all the author is saying is that the motivations for writing densely is analogous to the motivations of those who decide to be eccentric in order to try to shock or impress simpler minds.

In which case I am not one to be hookwinked by them with their gibberish display of aimless verbosity.

And also I am glad that you are coming around to my then suspicion now conclusion.

Susma

[Kalepha]

Susma, I never disagreed with you. I'm only a little disappointed by your aimless approach to understanding reality. I believe your time could be much better spent, if indeed you're interested in thinking (philosophically and scientifically) about thinking, which you seem to be.

I don't much doubt that some expositors want to appear as though what they say is significant, by way of constructing complex-seeming symbol arrangements. However, one must not fall into the trap of believing "if expositor writes pompously, then expositor is communicating nothing important."

Regardless of any perceived pomposity, in my own experience, generally perceived pomposity tends to become, in hindsight, increasingly more an illusion as one gains more relevant knowledge. Who cares if expositors want to relish in cheap thrills?! It doesn't hurt any, and offenses don't exist unless one invokes and arbitrarily assigns them an intrinsic awfulness.

[susmariosep]

A true Israelite writing without guile...?

Dear Nate:

Honestly, I am having difficulty understanding your short message to which I had already reacted, and hopefully to have linked up with your mind to more than 75% of complete understanding between our respective concerns.

Here is your short message:

I think that last statement is perfectly clear. There, all the author is saying is that the motivations for writing densely is analogous to the motivations of those who decide to be eccentric in order to try to shock or impress simpler minds.

You think that last statement is perfectly clear; You think... in which case that last statement is not perfectly clear to you, for otherwise you should have said: "I am convinced" and not "I think".

Furthermore: "There, all the author is saying is that the motivations for writing densely is analogous to the motivations of those who decide to be eccentric in order to try to shock or impress simpler minds."

Of course, you think, but you are not convinced. Besides you tell us "There, all the author is saying..." which 'all' means for you there is nothing but only, or it is merely or just, to shock and impress simpler minds.

I must confess that I have a more complicated mind than yours: you can see things as simple, while I tend to see things in an intricate convoluted tangle.

Here is that #3 sentence again:

3. Yet the association between difficulty and profundity might less generously be described as a manifestation in the literary sphere of a perversity familiar from emotional life, where people who are mysterious and elusive can inspire a respect in modest minds that reliable and clear ones do not.

There are two phrases which cause me trouble:

(a) ... might less generously be described...

(b) ...a perversity familiar from emotional life...


To free myself from the stress of that trouble I have happily remembered what I said in an earlier message here about all speech being composed of yes utterances and no utterances and maybe utterances or suspicions.

Yes, no, and maybe.


I am trying to produce some method that is simple to use in order to arrive at the thoughts of any dense writing from difficult philosophers.

Here is what I think we should bear in mind when we are trying to understand the thoughts which a dense writer wants to project before his readers, on the assumption that he is really sincere in the use of words which are of their nature invented for communicating with fellow humans:

1. Utterances which we might consider to be his yes statements;

2. Utterances which we might consider to be his no statements;

3. Utterances which we might consider to be his suspicions.

And here is my own suspicion about human speech utterances in oral and in written communication:

There are very few if none at all of definitively yes statements and no statements, almost all utterances are suspicions -- including my opinion here which I also call suspicion; but suspicions can be of more or less conviction from the part of the author.

(snipped)

I am sorry that for me that sentence is dense and I have to rephrase it in my own words, hoping to make it more accessible to my comprehension.

See next post.


Susma

[Kalepha]

susmariosep| You think that last statement is perfectly clear; You think... in which case that last statement is not perfectly clear to you, for otherwise you should have said: "I am convinced" and not "I think".

"I think X" means that X is an abstract representation of my psychological content, not assumed to be necessarily an abstract representation of anyone else's psychological content. X is true for me. Therefore, it is true for me that the last statement is perfectly clear. This would say nothing about whether it's perfectly clear to you.

susmariosep| I must confess that I have a more complicated mind than yours: you can see things as simple, while I tend to see things in an intricate convoluted tangle.

That could very well be true. I assure you, though, I'm a very confused individual, and it's probably only going to get increasingly worse for a long time (irrelevantly speaking, maybe 12 to 15 years) before it gets better. But if I make some things look simple, it's probably because I've been practicing.

susmariosep| There are two phrases which cause me trouble:

(a) ... might less generously be described...

(b) ...a perversity familiar from emotional life...

(a) approximately means "... might, if I'm mean about it, be described..."
(b) approximately means "... a stubborn behavior familiar from informal situations..."

[susmariosep]

Let's proceed step by step.


Here is that third sentence which I find troublesome, and I will break it up into smaller sentences with the normal order of subject and predicate linked together by verbs in the active voice.


Yet the association between difficulty and profundity might less generously be described as a manifestation in the literary sphere of a perversity familiar from emotional life, where people who are mysterious and elusive can inspire a respect in modest minds that reliable and clear ones do not.


Here are the yes and no statements in the excerpt above:

(a) Yes, you can in the literary sphere associate difficulty with profundity;

(b) Yes, there is perversity in the emotional life;

© Yes, mysterious and elusive people can inspire respect in modest minds;

(d) No, reliable and clear people don't inspire respect in modest minds;

(e) Yes, © and (d) make up a perversity in the emotional life of people;

(f) No, you cannot describe (a) as a perversity similar to (e).


Now, the author renders all the previous yes and no statements anemic so that they are essentially "maybe" statements only or suspicions. How?

By prefixing the whole text with the conjunction, Yet; and by joining (a) with the rest of the text from (b) to (f) with this phrase: might less generously be described as.


So, briefly, the author is inviting us to suspect the following situation and guard:

Difficult writing can suggest profundity; but an independent mind will save you from the trap of shallow writers shifty with their mysterious and illusive words.


Moral: Thinking so deeply as to oneself gets lost with conveying nothing definite but innuendos.

Susma

[susmariosep]

An example of clear, concise, and precision writing.


The following excerpt is from a presumably relatively younger professor of philosophy who also gives his students a set of guidelines how to write philosophy; and he follows his own guidelines.

Foundationalists and coherentists disagree over the structure of the part of the
mental state corpus that is relevant for epistemic achievement (Bonjour, 1999; Dancy,
1989; Haack, 1993; Sosa, 1980; Pollock and Cruz, 1999).1 Given the goals of a theory of
epistemic justification and the trajectory of the debate over the last three decades, it is not
difficult to see how structural questions possess a kind of immediacy. In order to
undertake an epistemic evaluation of a belief, one intuitive and appealing strategy is to
investigate the reasons for that belief to determine whether it is epistemically positive,
where the reasons are typically other beliefs. This demands that we must in turn
determine whether the reasons for the belief are themselves justified. A regress looms
(and thus a regress argument is in the making), and foundationalism and coherentism
propose proprietary views on the structural relations between beliefs with an eye toward
resolving it.
The foundationalist claims that there is a set of basic beliefs — or, at any rate,
basic cognitive states — which do not require reasons to explain their epistemically
positive nature because of some special characteristic(s) that they have. The epistemic
credentials of beliefs that are not foundational are due to a traceable lineage from basic
beliefs via a basing relation that must be illuminated by the foundationalist. Thus, the structure proposed includes relations that are asymmetrical, with some beliefs or
cognitive states providing epistemic support for other beliefs without themselves needing
epistemic support.
In contrast to foundationalists, coherentists maintain that no beliefs are by
themselves epistemically positive. By their lights, every belief relies in some way on
other beliefs for its epistemic status. On one reading of coherentism, beliefs are
epistemically positive based on a lineage in a structure that may ultimately loop back
onto itself. There may be no need, however, to trace reasons in a way that is circular. One
might instead claim that a belief is epistemically positive in case it is a member of a
coherent belief corpus without pursuing particular reasons in a linear fashion. What is
crucial about the coherentist proposal about structure is that it rejects the claim that any
relations are asymmetrical.
I presume that this story as it stands is a complete commonplace, so I will not
revisit its details even though there are many subtleties and complications.2
Foundationalism and coherentism are rivals with respect to what I will call the
structural question. The structural question is important and is my topic in this essay, but the distance between foundationalism and coherentism should not be overstated. Every credible foundationalist proposal makes room for the importance of broadly speaking ...
________________

1 I thank Yves Bouchard and Tomoji Shogengi for valuable comments on this paper.

2 For instance this portrayal leaves out any discussion of infinitism, namely the possibility that the regress continues on infinitely. While that option has sometimes been regarded as hopeless, some prominent defenses of it can be found (e.g., Klein, 1999).

What do the visitors here think? Is he writing clearly, concisely, and with precision, so that men in the street without belonging to the brotherhood of dense thinkers/writers can understand his thoughts?

Susma

[susmariosep]

Better reproduction of a well written text.


The previous reproduction of an excerpt from what I consider to be good philosophical writing did not come out right; so I am putting here a better draft, after having worked on its formatting into a Word text from its Pdf original.

Foundationalists and coherentists disagree over the structure of the part of the mental state corpus that is relevant for epistemic achievement (Bonjour, 1999; Dancy, 1989; Haack, 1993; Sosa, 1980; Pollock and Cruz, 1999).1 Given the goals of a theory of epistemic justification and the trajectory of the debate over the last three decades, it is not difficult to see how structural questions possess a kind of immediacy. In order to undertake an epistemic evaluation of a belief, one intuitive and appealing strategy is to investigate the reasons for that belief to determine whether it is epistemically positive, where the reasons are typically other beliefs. This demands that we must in turn determine whether the reasons for the belief are themselves justified. A regress looms (and thus a regress argument is in the making), and foundationalism and coherentism propose proprietary views on the structural relations between beliefs with an eye toward resolving it.

The foundationalist claims that there is a set of basic beliefs - or, at any rate, basic cognitive states - which do not require reasons to explain their epistemically positive nature because of some special characteristic(s) that they have. The epistemic credentials of beliefs that are not foundational are due to a traceable lineage from basic beliefs via a basing relation that must be illuminated by the foundationalist. Thus, the structure proposed includes relations that are asymmetrical, with some beliefs or cognitive states providing epistemic support for other beliefs without themselves needing epistemic support.

In contrast to foundationalists, coherentists maintain that no beliefs are by themselves epistemically positive. By their lights, every belief relies in some way on other beliefs for its epistemic status. On one reading of coherentism, beliefs are epistemically positive based on a lineage in a structure that may ultimately loop back onto itself. There may be no need, however, to trace reasons in a way that is circular. One might instead claim that a belief is epistemically positive in case it is a member of a coherent belief corpus without pursuing particular reasons in a linear fashion. What is crucial about the coherentist proposal about structure is that it rejects the claim that any relations are asymmetrical.

I presume that this story as it stands is a complete commonplace, so I will not revisit its details even though there are many subtleties and complications.2 Foundationalism and coherentism are rivals with respect to what I will call the structural question. The structural question is important and is my topic in this essay, but the distance between foundationalism and coherentism should not be overstated. Every credible foundationalist proposal makes room for the importance of broadly speaking coherence relations... 

__________________ 

1  I thank Yves Bouchard and Tomoji Shogengi for valuable comments on this paper. 

2  For instance this portrayal leaves out any discussion of infinitism, namely the possibility that the regress continues on infinitely. While that option has sometimes been regarded as hopeless, some prominent defenses of it can be found (e.g., Klein, 1999).

Compare it to this text which I consider to be dense writing:

Such contradictory articulations of reality and desire - seen in racist stereotypes, statements, jokes, myths - are not caught in the doubtful circle of the return of the repressed. They are the effects of a disavowal that denies the differences of the other but produces in its stead forms of authority and multiple belief that alienate the assumptions of ‘civil’ discourse. If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses Of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to ‘normalize’ formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality. The ambivalence of colonial authority repeatedly turns from mimicry - a difference that is almost nothing but not quite - to menace - a difference that is almost total but not quite. And in that other scene of colonial power, where history turns to farce and presence to ‘a part’ can be seen the twin figures of narcissism and paranoia that repeat furiously, uncontrollably.

And also this excerpt which started well and ended badly:

It is common to assume that we are dealing with a highly intelligent book when we cease to understand it. Profound ideas cannot, after all, be explained in the language of children. Yet the association between difficulty and profundity might less generously be described as a manifestation in the literary sphere of a perversity familiar from emotional life, where people who are mysterious and elusive can inspire a respect in modest minds that reliable and clear ones do not.

My point is that philosophical writers must launch into a reform of their writing style, to embrace the criteria of clarity, brevity, and precision; unless they fear that in writing clearly, briefly, and precisely they might reveal themselves not to have anything worthy or new to say, or any new but better and more eloquent methods to say what they want to tell fellow humans.


Susma