/lit/ - Literature

>>15733277
>Grice
severely lacking in CUTEness, unlike maiboi

the CUTE

CUTIEPIE AUSTIN

>>12129118
>definitions

>mum lost her 500 page novel due to hard drive failure
>won't ever have to read her plebshit

Austin is a cute.

>>9278618
aren't you forgetting someone

>>9275336

>*YOU* are full of bullshit.

>Hegelian is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that
>a lot of substandard thinkers use it, to the point where it's much much
>easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
>the choice of ordinary language were to do *nothing* but keep the
>continentals out, that in itself would be a huge reason to use it.

>In other words: the choice of ordinary language is the only sane choice.
>I know Gilbert Ryle jokingly said "to piss you off", but it's actually true. I've come
>to the conclusion that any philosopher that would prefer the project to be
>in Hegelian is likely a philosopher that I really *would* prefer to piss
>off, so that he doesn't come and screw up any project I'm involved with.

>Hegelian leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
>the "deep" features of the language like dialectics and deconstruction and other
>total and utter crap, that may "help" your program, but causes:

> - infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
> that dialectics and especially deconstruction are understandable and
> translatable is just so full of BS that it's not even funny)

> - inefficient abstracted thought models where two years down the road
> you notice that some abstraction wasn't very clear, but now all
> your publications depends on all the nice semiotics around it, and you
> cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

>In other words, the only way to do good, clear, and language-level and
>translatable philosophy ends up to limit yourself to all the things that are
>basically available in ordinary language. And limiting your project to ordinary
>language means that people don't screw that up, and also means that you
>get a lot of philosophers that do actually understand language-level issues
>and don't screw things up with any idiotic "semiotics" crap.

Why don't you subscribe to pragmatism, /lit/?

It'll dissolve all your problems.