The Uncanniness of the Ordinary - Stanley Cavell (1986)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 май 2022
- Stanley Cavell gives the first of his 1986 Tanner lectures on the Uncanniness of the Ordinary. More information will be added later.
#philosophy #cavell #wittgenstein
Most underrated philosopher of the 20th century
Indeed
Cavell's facility with language is extraordinary to the point of being uncanny.
now cavell! your work is soooooo priceless!!!!
melhor canal do youtube
@@ricardocima el mejor indeed.
Thank you so much for this
In my parents, marriage constituted taking of mutual agony without cohabitation.
Ecclesiastes chapter 7v16. Still applies for all times.
I published a 500-page book. It was my PhD thesis in Chemical Physics.
Cool. Your kid must be named Benzine.
???
@@Catofminerva . !!!
Who cares?
@@Chevalier_de_Pas I do, which is all that matters. You are just another mental turd.
Mathematicians and scientists have made many discoveries that are applicable to all people and all communities around the world. They have done so in large part by converting the initially vague notions of their hypotheses expressed in natural languages to precise conclusions in formal languages such as math and scientific notation.
Why wouldn't this approach have some benefit to philosophy as well? Why would we want to be open the various meanings of a particular word as it is used in common work-a-day speech, when we could agree on specific definitions that can be argued for or against?
Trying to nail down precise definitions for particular words often provides an easy target for skepticism, but leaving things vague only means that you've decided to blur the target in hopes that the skeptic won't have anything precise to aim at.
I'm sorry, I don't understand a single thing you've said without precise, formal definitions of each word! Joking, obviously, but the fact that I understand you without your having done all that work (which I think we both agree would be impossible and unnecessary) should serve as a reminder for just how much we have, can, and will do with ordinary language. Certainly that seems relevant for philosophy to think about.
@@MG-ld8br its relevant for poetry and novelwriting. Often what some philosophers write is barely comprehensible, and I'm confident some clear definitions or formalisation could help - if they ever cared to be understood. But it seems like the first comment is right - being unclear makes it harder to criticise your work and writing clearly takes hard work and requiers you to think clearly - and none of that comes easy.
Why are you devaluing vagueness? Many things are vague not because of our misunderstanding or misdefinition of them, but because they are imprecise and entangled.
@@kvaka009 so what, you can still try thinking about them clearly. And for me its obvious everyone should try to do that.
@szefszefow7562 sure. Be vague clearly! If that seems like a paradox to you, I'll direct your attention to the entry on clarity in Elements of Style. If one believes the idea that "being clear" means having exactly a one to one relation between sense and it's referent, as the original comment suggests, then this is a sign of a too literal and muddled mind.
Never tell the truth if a lie will serve its purpose. This is why most people remind me of a carpet - as they lie like a rug.
American, ryt?🤣
Politicians never mean what they say.
exactly, but you know, they dont know much things, they just think they do...
Sounds like an episode of the Twilight Zone.
I'd rather keep my manhood.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Profgossip. Feel free to skip.