Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mirh t1_irb8c80 wrote

Reply to comment by strahol in Heidegger v Carnap: how logic took issue with metaphysics by ADefiniteDescription

It's part of the package if you ask me.

Be as "harsh" and "bold" as possible, in order for even the slightest rough edge to be visible (and thus readily debatable).

4

iiioiia t1_irbggc2 wrote

> It's part of the package if you ask me.

Whether that is necessary or optimal is another matter. But then, there's something to be said for having fun as well!

−1

mirh t1_irbifml wrote

"Harsh" in the way you can interpret it. You totally understand it how I meant, or it won't click at all, like a semiconductor (and nicely enough, another user below took up on the possible incomprehensions)

Not "harsh" from a point of view of respect.

6

iiioiia t1_irbizyu wrote

Agree (I think?)...but I'm thinking more along the lines of something like diplomacy...but not in terms of getting people to like you, or necessarily agree with / adopt your ideas, but rather from the perspective of getting people to even consider your ideas. (But of course, this can take away from the fun/ease aspect.)

I hope this makes some sense, some ideas are difficult to communicate.

2

mirh t1_irbnn6j wrote

The assumption here is that most people will be comfortable and halfway knowledgeable of themes being treated.

Of course if every man was their own independent separate island, you'd have a far more tentative and shy approach.

3

iiioiia t1_irbojma wrote

> The assumption here is that most people will be comfortable and halfway knowledgeable of themes being treated.

True, but there are several other variables involved, one of which is how people respond to specific language/style that is used during conversation.

Not a big deal, just thought it was possibly interesting.

3