In response to Nicole, full post here
Should philosophy be remedial rather than preventative? I think it should be the latter. I do not think that philosophers should wait around for proper reasons to change things. I do think that, if possible, a philosopher should go out and try to find problems with things before there is any need to. Right now, we aren't saying that we should change the definition on a whim, we are going to look for sufficient evidence against the definition we currently hold, if we find none, then we won't change the definition.
I have, since my original post, changed my answer regarding the speech. I do think that there are speeches which fit my sufficient causes and should be considered literature. I do think that some speeches (i.e. I have a dream, Gettysburg Address, and so on) have literary qualities and should thereby be considered literature. I think that the distinction I was think about was the frequency with which I could consider either a work of literature, I would say that most plays when written are literature, whereas I would not say the same for speeches.
What, then, is your definition for coherent? Because any person can take a meaning from any collection of words. And once the initial person makes a connection in this conglomeration or words that seem to have no connection, other people, too, will see the same meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment