trc@houca.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/29/83)
Response to users of terms like "t-rational", "t-logic" etc: Also, this notation makes the discussion in-accessible to new readers, by making the discussion sound as if it were somehow technical or profound. I object to such methods in philosophy or any other area. Philosophy, in particular, is too important to be left to experts. Lets try to limit our use of jargon, as much as possible, rather than deliberately expand it. A proper way is to simply state "If I accept your definitions,...." or something similar, (once) at the top of your note. This makes it clear that you are attempting to prove someone's views wrong by showing some contradiction that arises from accepting their definition. (I also think that using such terminology implies "I am willing to humor you and allow you to use this special terminology - since your definition really is not the correct meaning of that word". If you don't like a person's definition, just say so, and why, and be prepared to defend your position. Definitions *are* important!) Tom Craver houca!trc
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (09/01/83)
We obviously disagree about this one. I am tired of having to restate my original position AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. The problem being that the people do not accept my definition of whatever, but go headlong into their own definition of whatever. Thus I have to drag them away from their own definitions before I can actually do anything akin to communicating with them. What do you do? If you ignore them, others may think that you have given up your position. If you blast them publically, you get lots of hate mail. If you try to explain where they went wrong you get X number of other people who decide that the way philosophical discussions work is for them to try and formulate their own definition of whatever, and then see if you can explain why yours is not the same thing as theirs -- or worse, you get people who cannot formulate their own definition but give you a never ending stream of examples to combat. This is very tiring. I decided to use "t-rationality" in an attempt to see if I could avoid the whole issue. I reasoned that if the terms were understood, then there would be no added confusion, and in addition people might be more aware that they could not talk about "t-rationality" without keeping in mind their interpretation of what you meant by the word "rationality". Perhaps I am overly optimistic. For the people who did not understand, I figured that an explanatory note would be sufficient. I inferred from mail from Alan Wexelblatt, who suggested the device to me, that it was a common device that people who are well read in philosophy would instantly understand. As I read more and more philosophy, I see it more and more often, with supports this belief. How do other people deal with this problem if they do not resort to philosophical jargon? Personally, I do not find jargon distasteful except when it is used to obscure, which was not my intention. Indeed, I believed that I was being more precise. I do not fully understand what you (Tom Craver) mean by "rationality". It is interesting that what I do infer from your articles is rather close to what I call "compassion". Clearly either my definition of compassion is non-standard (very likely) or your definition of rationality is, or both, or the distiction between compassion and rationality is artificial. Given that everyone I know makes a distinction, I tend to reject this last hypothesis. If I ever get around to discussion compassion, I expect I will have a very up-hill battle in expressing my views. What am I to do about this? laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura