Concerning Supercalifragilisticexpealideosis (page 2)

larc

Philosophical question of the day.

I much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

Seeker

I see anti-intellectualism is alive and well here. That's sad to see, for it is another form of discrimination -- one rampant through American culture and society.

I have no problem with the way duns writes. I don't happen to like it, but I can live with it. But I know as someone who uses whatever appropriate word comes to mind first, regardless of its length, that a person could be using less common words for a number of reasons. Compensating for some inadequacy, as people have been joking here, is not the only reason. For instance, if duns is surrounded by people who speak this way, he would naturally think of those words first. People in highly technical professions often develop a jargon that is not familiar to outsiders.

Would I prefer that duns wrote the way we write? Yes, it would be easier to deal with. But if he continues to express himself in a way that he has become accustomed, I will look up the words he uses and increase my education. After all, an "interlocuter" is NOT the same as a "poster." Learning the difference adds meaning to the statement.

In fact, that is the point of so-called "big" words: they precisely identify something in a way that could only be accomplished by several other words. If we are not familiar with the words, we can learn.

Now, duns really does take it over the top, and I wish he would tone it down so as to take his audience into consideration. But if we just make fun of him for his 'high falutin' words', it becomes a form of discrimination -- attacking the intellectuals. After all the anti-intellectualism of the WTS, you'd think we could tolerate even pretentious-sounding intellectuals.

America (and I suppose many other countries as well) glorifies the dumb, and looks down on the intelligent. "Book learning" is considered wrong, and plain, uneducated common sense is the Yankee ideal. Intellectuals getting their comeuppance is a long-standing theme in our stories. Well, I'm sick of it, and I hate to see such ugliness here as well.

dunsscot

Dear Seeker,

:I see anti-intellectualism is alive and well here. That's sad to see, for it is another form of discrimination -- one rampant through American culture and society.
I have no problem with the way duns writes. I don't happen to like it, but I can live with it. But I know as someone who uses whatever appropriate word comes to mind first, regardless of its length, that a person could be using less common words for a number of reasons. Compensating for some inadequacy, as people have been joking here, is not the only reason. For instance, if duns is surrounded by people who speak this way, he would naturally think of those words first. People in highly technical professions often develop a jargon that is not familiar to outsiders.:

Thanks for your understanding words. I think you hit on a point that people need to understand here.

This forum is partly serious and partly recreational for me. Maybe I am bored because I am out of school this summer, and I do not have an awful lot to stimulate my mind. Maybe I just want to keep on top of my "jargon" game that I am used to in school. (Philosophy, however, is not just about "jargon." The use of certain terms are purposeful as you note.) So I use a lot of big words to express certain concepts. But folks must remember that the character called Duns is just that. I have kids and I do not communicate with them by using high-falutin words. The man behind Duns lives in the "real" world. He goes to work, writes papers, and socializes with students and JWs. He knows how to use varying registers for different situations. But here, I get to relax and have a little fun, while hopefully planting a few spiritual and intellectual seeds. Lastly, I do not take the jokes seriously. Many times I am lying on the floor with laughter. But I thank you for understanding Duns. :-)

Sincerely,
Dan

Duns the Scot

hawkaw

As someone who is forced into such jargon as potentiometric surface, geomorphology, hyrdogeochemist, hydrostatic head pressure, static water level and on and on and on, I was wondering if dunsscot was one of those consultant's whose reports I have to review all the time.

Love your post messenger - ROTFLMAO.

Commie Chris - I saw on another thread that you had to kneel down to the "great dunsscot". As a former POTUS once said, "I feel your pain".

hawk

Mommie Dark

Seeker, I don't think what you see is 'anti-intellectualism'. It's anti-impenetrability. Duns is using philosophical pseudointellectualism as a weapon, for no other reason than to amuse himself, at the expense of those he self-admittedly views as vile and apostate. Every moment spent trying to penetrate his impenetrable doubletalk is a moment wasted, one that rightfully could be spent debunking the evil cult he endorses wholeheartedly. He likes it that way. He gets a jolt out of talking down to others, obviously, and has admitted that his dabbling here is mere dilettantism. He has no respect for anyone here; he shouldn't expect any in return. Especially since he is too chickenshit to come out and play under the same persona with which he defends the cult. Of course, if he did that, he would have to face the elders yet again, and he has already said in one of his previous incarnations that he prefers to make up new personalities in order to avoid that. Why should anyone give a second's respect or consideration to a lying coward? He has certainly done exactly nothing to warrant any. He deserves every ounce of scorn and derision he's bought for himself here.

Just because a troll has a set of Britannica's Great Philosophers and a thesaurus, doesn't make him any less a stinking troll.

Hmmm

Discrimination? Ugly? I have to disagree with you, Seeker.

From what I've seen, you agree with the vast majority of posters whose only problem with Duns (apart from being a JW) is that he is so "over the top" with his language. He tries so hard to use extra-big words that he often makes no point at all. Pointing this out, or challenging his arguments is not "anti-intellectualism."

Being in a "technical" field is no excuse. Many of us work in technical fields, but save the jargon for our colleagues. (I work in the computer industry, and we probably have more acronyms than any other. I have a 1000-page book of networking acronyms and their meanings.) It really has nothing to do with choosing appropriate words, regardless of length, but rather with choosing often inappropriate words BECAUSE of their length.

Most of us have no problem with anyone who challenges us to expand our horizons--linguistically or otherwise--but most of us think that Duns' agenda goes beyond that.

But if we just make fun of him for his 'high falutin' words', it becomes a form of discrimination -- attacking the intellectuals. After all the anti-intellectualism of the WTS, you'd think we could tolerate even pretentious-sounding intellectuals.

I think people have been reacting badly to "pretentious" not "intellectual."

America... glorifies the dumb, and looks down on the intelligent. "Book learning" is considered wrong, and plain, uneducated common sense is the Yankee ideal. Intellectuals getting their comeuppance is a long-standing theme in our stories. Well, I'm sick of it, and I hate to see such ugliness here as well.

I don't recall a single story where intellectuals have gotten their "comeuppance." Comeuppance connotes deserved punishment, and I've only seen it dished out to the stilted, arrogant, pseudo-intellectual. America looks down on the pretentious, not the simply intelligent. Humble intelligence is just as revered as humble common sense (yes, I know the two terms are not mutually exclusive). I strongly disagree that anyone has derided Duns simply for having an expanded vocabulary

Hmmm

Seeker

MD,

Seeker, I don't think what you see is 'anti-intellectualism'. It's anti-impenetrability.

Well, maybe, maybe not. Look at the way he is being made fun of and it reminds me of making fun of intelligence. As for impenetrability, nothing he has said has been impenetrable to me, although I have had to look up a couple of words first. No shame in that -- learning new words is useful.

As for him being a troll, I can't claim to have read everything he has posted, but some of what he has said has been interesting and valid. Trolls don't usually do that. He may be playing with us, as he says, but he also brings a unique persepctive to the table, and I enjoy another point-of-view. At least we finally have a JW that is intelligent without also being drugged-out like You Know.

Ah well, I understand some of the frustration with the duns character. I just hated to see even a hint of anti-intellectualism. I've spent my whole life being an outsider, and just when I finally get to express myself any way I want without fear of ridicule, I see this. It struck a nerve, that's all.

dunsscot

Here is a snippet from one of the books I am currently reading. I thought you guys would just eat up this quote:

"The discussion is rich and it will, unfortunately, be impossible to convey the many roads trod in Masolo's painstaking, critical discussion from negritude through ethnophilosophy through antiethnophilosophy and sage philosophy through contemporary modern, postmodern, and analytical positioning; from Marxism and phenomenology (philosophical and 'religious') and existentialism to textual and genealogical poststructuralism and neopragmatism; to the persistent problem of the question of the African as the threat of relativism" (Lewis R. Gordon, Her Majesty's Other Children: Sketches of Racism from a Neocolonial Age, page 142).

Duns the Scot

ozziepost

Whatever happened to "antidisestablishmentarianism" that I learned at school?

Cheers,
Ozzie

"There are two ways of moving men, interest and fear" Napoleon

Seeker

duns,

That quote, to someone who is familiar with that list of -isms, is quite clear and precise. It would take many paragraphs to get across the same thoughts without using those words.

To those who are not familiar with those schools of thought, it is so much gibberish and an unnecessary use of "big" words. Those words aren't big, though, just precise.

Concerning Supercalifragilisticexpealideosis

Share this