It is one of the problems with philosophy in that it needs a dictionary
of terms of which several versions are available. But the problem more
so is when trying to present original thought or theory it should be
able to be written in a way that can be readily understood, which
requires a glossary of terms. Not that this is intended as a criticism
of CW's use of terms which can be readily found in a phil dictionary,
but rather that these terms are very convenient as shorthand which seems
to be required in email list exchanges. It can also slow a reading down
quite a lot and prevent a too hasty response, which is an advantage. (It
really isn't practical to give a quick easily understood summary of
philosophy, even in part. A reference to Husserl, for example, requires
at least a basic understanding of his system.)
This aside, there must be a way to write very abstract poetic theory in
a way that is easily understood. But since even extremely good writers
such as Deleuze can be difficult to understand not to mention the
difficulty many readers seem to have with Foucault, who is an
outstanding writer and who comes along and gives the term epistemology a
new meaning, I feel like throwing my hands up and declaring defeat.
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 08:44 -0700, Douglas Barbour wrote:
> I (hmm) [ahem] seem to be getting ever less able to deal with theory as
> such, so I just don't tend to use all these terms
|