Page 4 of 7

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: July 6th, 2013, 6:15 pm
by Anathematized_one
That reminds me of something else...

One of the key aspects of communication is body language and tone of voice. On a forum, all you have is text so assumptions should not be made on what is said or interpretated as being said as much as care should be taken in properly wording in a concise way what exactly it is you're saying.

Also that nothing should be assumed to be more, less or other than what is explicitly written and that what is written should also be explicit and not contain what others should infer or assume.

This is actually why my signature has been as it has for so long. Take the "Horton Hears a Who" view: I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 8:46 pm
by Windhorse
Concision and clarity in philosophy is hard won. I have a few college degrees, have spent fifteen years trying to educate myself in philosophy, and am just starting to to understand the overall arc of philosophic thought. Without such acumen it's like wandering in wilderness without a map, and without such a map it's hard to grasp (and convey), concisely, where you are relative to anyone else. So part of becoming philosophically literate is stumbling around in the dark and being, at first, only semi-articulate.

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: August 10th, 2013, 4:05 am
by Belinda
Windhorse, would you consider that good use of language not only conveys thoughts and/or feelings to others but also crystalises one's own thoughts and feelings?

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: September 2nd, 2013, 6:09 am
by Stormcloud
Scott, you sound like a right nanny! It is time you absorbed the diffences in the way people present their viewpoints. If there is no personal abuse then I see no problem.That you should 'expect' discussion to follow ceertain lines (yours)? is stoppping just short of dictatorship & censoring. If we do not gel with certain contributions then we simply pass - we are adults, you know?

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: September 2nd, 2013, 6:27 am
by Philosophy Explorer
There is a certain contradiction between being concise and the rule that the OP must be a 45-word minimum. I could have been more concise, but this forum dictated otherwise.

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: October 2nd, 2013, 7:16 pm
by BruceD
Windhorse wrote:Concision and clarity in philosophy is hard won. I have a few college degrees, have spent fifteen years trying to educate myself in philosophy, and am just starting to to understand the overall arc of philosophic thought. Without such acumen it's like wandering in wilderness without a map, and without such a map it's hard to grasp (and convey), concisely, where you are relative to anyone else. So part of becoming philosophically literate is stumbling around in the dark and being, at first, only semi-articulate.
I think that knowledge of philosophy is not at all required to be a concise, lucid writer. It does, however, require certain writing skills and careful thinking.

I do not have a lot of experience with Philosophy. But I still (usually) try to ensure that what I write is clear and concise. And the extent to which I fail in that is due more to occasional lack of effort than anything else.

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: October 2nd, 2013, 9:12 pm
by Stormcloud
I understand what you are saying windhorse; you just keep stumbling along. Best wishes. :D

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: October 26th, 2013, 4:38 am
by JJA_Magnum+Opus
Philosophy does not have stringent rules for great ideas can be expressed in whatever forms and in however means... Now if we put so much emphasis on language or its structure/clarity, aren't we also like giving one freedom to express but that expression is also limited or restricted by what is required?

Let's opt for being coherent rather than being clear and concise.

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: October 26th, 2013, 10:27 pm
by Stormcloud
Post 53, makes sense. :D

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: October 27th, 2013, 4:21 am
by Belinda
But in order to communicate nicely it helps to be clear and concise, Clarity and concision are the converse of obscurantism and rambling.

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: October 27th, 2013, 5:12 am
by Stormcloud
You would know all about rambling, Belinda

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: October 29th, 2013, 11:04 am
by BruceD
Teknix wrote:Thanks for the warning!
To whomever reads this post...

Is there a way to know which post is being responded to? For example, the post I quoted is meaningless to me if I don't know what it is in response to.

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: November 8th, 2013, 1:44 am
by Amid
Wanderer101 wrote:Can anyone recomend a good ebook for an introduction of philosphy and logic. I would also like to know about the history of philosophy.
I do not think you can do better than Betrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. It is, by most counts, the best background to the subject written in English. I re-read it every five or so years as a refresher and to re-acquaint myself with Mr. Russell's near perfect command of the language.

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: December 4th, 2013, 1:21 am
by Universal Knowledge
I thought that 'productive' means that we are learning new ideas. We are also learning to put our own ideas into concise language which helps us ourselves to clarify our thought about some idea.

Re: The Need for Concision and Clarity on the Philosophy For

Posted: May 19th, 2014, 6:28 pm
by Icpoems
I'd like to add, there is a rule in philosophy called Occham's Razor. It states of all the possible hypotheses, it is most advisable to use the one with the fewest assumptions. So, I tend to avoid high blown language, complicated explanations and run-on sentences.