Indubitably, it would be an intellectually stimulating and intellectually invigorating exercise to endeavor to craft a prose devoid of any substantive idea or notion. To partake in such a linguistic activity, one must embrace the aphorism that the beauty of language lies not in its utilitarian function but rather in the aesthetic pleasure of its form. The pursuit of such an objective requires a mastery of language that transcends the pedestrian concerns of conveying meaning and instead focuses on the artful arrangement of words and phrases into a mosaic of syntactical structure. One must be cautious, however, not to fall into the trap of mistaking verbal acrobatics for genuine intellectual profundity. For while it may be entertaining to indulge in a linguistic parlor game, it is ultimately through the substantive and coherent expression of ideas that we achieve true intellectual enlightenment.
↳
In-reply-to
»
@prologic hmm, dunno about the recency of that line of thought. I suspect though that given his (recent or not) history, if someone directly asked him "do you support rape" he would not say "no", he'd go on one of these rambling answers about property crime like he did in the video. Maybe I'm mind poisoned by being around academics my whole career, but that way of talking is how an academic gives you an answer they know will be unpopular. PhD = Piled Higher And Deeper, after all right? In other words, if he doesn't say "no" right away, he's saying "yes", except with so many words there's some uncertainty about whether he actually meant yes. And he damn well knows that, and that's why I give him no slack.
⤋ Read More