I shudder to think how cramped and bare my world view would be had I grown up only reading things that were written in a bland cosmopolitan style stripped of any local flavor that might have confused me for a moment.
Pace “You rather than Me’s” concerns about culturally specific terms, I like it when these pop up and I don’t understand them (so long as I can find an explanation somewhere) because this is how I learn things. I think the best option is what Hare has done: explain terms that are liable to introduce confusion, if there are no other ways for the reader to get an explanation (e.g. I don’t think any terms should be avoided merely because they could introduce confusion. As with Hare’s example, the slight differences in connotation between these three can make for divergences in the interpretation and assessment of larger points and arguments. something that neither masquerades as something stronger or more real, nor “fights back,” but can nevertheless be useful for instruction. something that “goes up in flames” or is defeated easily, even if it fools no one or (c) a practice target for military exercises, i.e. something that is designed to spook casual onlookers but doesn’t hold up to closer scrutiny (b) an effigy, i.e. Philosophers I’ve spoken with treat it as a reference to: (a) a scarecrow, i.e. At any rate, another example that comes to mind is “strawman”. I wonder, though, if this is this more an issue of *metaphor* generally than technical jargon? (Granted that, as in Hare’s example, sometimes technical jargon can be metaphor-laden.) Even if it is, of course, that’s no reason why writers still shouldn’t be cognizant of the possible parochialism of their own metaphors.
What a great topic, and I really appreciate Prof. Our idioms just aren’t cutting any ice let’s add some creative zest! Report Still, I sometimes wonder whether this contributes to a popular conception of academic philosophy as insular and boring. That said, this is a purely aesthetic and flimsy and borderline unserious criticism, and I’m just as guilty of using (and later cringing at my use of) these idioms. It doesn’t help that many of the idioms are outdated in the broader culture (who *sincerely* and *non-academically* says “that doesn’t cut any ice,” nowadays?). While I totally understand that idioms can expedite understanding between scholars (albeit largely within cultures), the use of “bite the bullet,” “cut any ice,” “doing all the work,” etc., over and over again, across an otherwise diverse range of literatures, just starts to feel… uninspired, I guess. I want to add that, in addition to avoiding obscurity, it might also incidentally benefit originality in philosophical writing. I’m glad to see this caveat, especially regarding culture-specific idioms. But here it’s used to mean “not credible.” Of course, grammatically that’s fine, but I still find it jarring, so I warn my students to look for it, and advise them to use “not credible” or “non-credible” instead themselves, so as to avoid confusion with no loss in meaning. Isn’t it normally good if something is incredible? If I said, “X was an incredible witness the other day”, most people would take this to mean, I think, that X was a very above average witness. The first time I encountered that I was briefly very puzzled. On the main topic, not an example from philosophy, but from my other field, law – sometimes, when discussing whether a witness is credible or not, a court will say that a witness was “incredible”. It will, even in the short term, make you look less intelligent if you don’t ask. Even moving to Australia from the US, I encounter expressions all the time that I don’t understand at all.
It “Another International Grad” – you should not feel hesitation to ask such things. I realize that this site seems to be groaning under its own weight, but if that can be fixed, it would help a lot.) (I really wish the “reply” function could be made to work again.
0 kommentar(er)
