[lit-ideas] Re: Why Is Academic Writing So Academic?
- From: Mike Geary <gearyservice@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:29:29 -0600
Not having read much into "primary source" materials, I have no standing in
this discussion; nevertheless' I dare say that of those few primary sources
I have read, there seems to be precious little satire or sarcasm or irony
or word play or humor or levity of any kind whatsoever. That would lead me
to believe that philosopher types are fundamentally serious souls intent of
finding just ONE damn indisputable fact that a philosophical system can be
built upon. Descartes thought he had found it with his Cogito, but, as
some wag remarked, he had committed the fallacy of putting Descartes before
des horse. Me? I question God's hand in this mess. I mean, what kind of
diety would create a Life Form that depends for it's life on eating other
Life Forms? Knowing that one exists only to be eaten -- whether by lions
or tigers or bears or microbes or whatever -- greatly detracts from our
desire to sanctify existence and greatly disturbs one's sense of
equanimity, on the other hand, it has caused me to look anew at God and to
wonder if this is not a part of his infinite humor. I now have visions of
God sitting up there in his big God chair and rollicking with laughter.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think that it is meant to invite a tautological reply, i.e. that
> academic writing looks academic because it is academic. In other words, it
> is somewhat pointless to try to evaluate it by the standards of, say,
> journalistic writing. However, there are also some gloomy remarks about the
> current state of the academia.
>
> O.K.
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 2:34 PM, "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <
> Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why Is Academic Reading So Academic?
>
> In a message dated 2/25/2014 3:58:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx quotes a question:
> >Why is Academic Writing So Academic?
>
> I would rephrase the question as follows (Grice, "Do not multiply senses
> beyond necessity"):
>
> i. Why is academic-1 writing so academic-2
>
> To read it as:
>
> ii. Why is academic-1 writing so academic-1
>
> seems to invite the answer which would be tautologous. Since we cannot
> assume that the QUESTION is inviting a tautologous answer (which the
> questioner
> is supposed to already know), I should quote from Plato.
>
> Back in the day of Plato's Academy, there was no 'academic' writing. Only
> 'academic talking'. He called it 'dialogos'. He was funny enough to
> transpose a character he had met in the agora (once): a barefoot man by
> the name of
> Socrates, and turned him into a 'dramatis persona' of those dialogues. The
> dialogues were meant to illustrate what philosophers do best: walk in
> olive gardens and ramble over stuff.
>
> This 'academic' conversation.
>
> Interestingly, the name 'Academic' Plato drew from the former owner of
> the
> land where he established the Academia. In a bit of hypercorrection, it
> should be pointed out that the original toponym was Hekademos (or
> something).
>
> It may be said that an Academic philosopher later WROTE those dialogues,
> and thus the academic conversation (or conversation in the Academy) became
> a
> piece of writing (or 'parchment', as Geary prefers) but that's a longer
> story.
>
> It was totally different at Plato's main competitor: the Lycaeum. Or not.
> The conversations down there (in downtown Athens, under the midday sun,
> were
> up and down and down and up, 'peri-pathetic', they came to be called).
>
> Socrates his self, while, like Diogenes, favoured the agora, was also
> known
> to enjoy meetings by a villa on the seaside. Cfr. "Attic Nights". Or not.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
>
Other related posts:
