In contemporary English it is considered incorrect to use the pronoun 'they' as a singular pronoun. "If a child is unable to play piano, they should take lessons."The previous sentence is an example of a grammatically incorrect sentence. In order to use the pronoun "they" correctly, the sentence must be recast in the plural like this: "If children are unable to play the piano, they should take lessons." If you are talking about a single child whose gender is not known, it is commonly accepted that you use "he or she." This, however, is a problem when it excludes androgynes, bigendered individuals, pangendered individuals, and so on. You are either a he or a she or you don't exist as far as the English language is concerned. This is slightly outdated and could stand some adjustment.
The pronoun "they" is all encompassing, and despite some initial confusion, I think that it should be grammatically correct to use it as a singular pronoun. A consequence of this may be that we will need to be more specific and clear about whom we are talking about; a bit of practice could probably fix that. It is also important to recognize that it could only become grammatically correct through using it notwithstanding the fact that it is currently incorrect.
10 March 2012
Conclusion for CRITO Essay I
Conclusion: Philosophy should be preventative rather than remedial.
I came up with this conclusion based on the fact that few people seem to understand the importance of being preventative rather than remedial. While we were discussing the possibility of changing the definition of literature, it was met with some critics who asked "why should we even bother trying to change the definition of literature if we have no evidence suggesting that we should. Our current definition seems to be working so why should we try to change it?" It's the whole, if it isn't broken, don't fix it shenanigan. It is important to address issues before they become serious issues. George Orwell, for instance, warns that language is going to become incredibly vague; English will be filled with very simple and vague answers. It is important to recognize the possibility of this threat long before it becomes a reality. If it does become a reality, it will become incredibly difficult to fix it because we won't be able to express ourselves properly.
I came up with this conclusion based on the fact that few people seem to understand the importance of being preventative rather than remedial. While we were discussing the possibility of changing the definition of literature, it was met with some critics who asked "why should we even bother trying to change the definition of literature if we have no evidence suggesting that we should. Our current definition seems to be working so why should we try to change it?" It's the whole, if it isn't broken, don't fix it shenanigan. It is important to address issues before they become serious issues. George Orwell, for instance, warns that language is going to become incredibly vague; English will be filled with very simple and vague answers. It is important to recognize the possibility of this threat long before it becomes a reality. If it does become a reality, it will become incredibly difficult to fix it because we won't be able to express ourselves properly.
Through vs. By
In response to Nicole - full post here
The memories, I think, are the key here. The universe, as in commonly agreed upon, is one of a deterministic nature, meaning that everything that has happened up to now could only happen in the way that it did. There is no way that you could have had any other car. The memories, thereby are necessarily attributed to that car alone. If, hypothetically, you could go back and change the car, the memories for that car would be different. The point is, you do, in fact, care for the car; the circumstances which led you to care about the car could not have been any different. I'm not sure that you could say that you care about the fact that you care about the car. You do care about the car not because it was the object through which, not by which those specific memories were made.
The memories, I think, are the key here. The universe, as in commonly agreed upon, is one of a deterministic nature, meaning that everything that has happened up to now could only happen in the way that it did. There is no way that you could have had any other car. The memories, thereby are necessarily attributed to that car alone. If, hypothetically, you could go back and change the car, the memories for that car would be different. The point is, you do, in fact, care for the car; the circumstances which led you to care about the car could not have been any different. I'm not sure that you could say that you care about the fact that you care about the car. You do care about the car not because it was the object through which, not by which those specific memories were made.
09 March 2012
Caring for Cars
In response to Krystal - full post here
Yes, I like the last point that you made in this post. I think it is a largely important piece to this puzzle. History played out in such a way that that you could have only had those memories with the specific car and no other. We could not simply replace the car and give you new memories because then your attachment would be to a different car, but you would still be attached to it. The car certainly has worth to you.
Yes, I like the last point that you made in this post. I think it is a largely important piece to this puzzle. History played out in such a way that that you could have only had those memories with the specific car and no other. We could not simply replace the car and give you new memories because then your attachment would be to a different car, but you would still be attached to it. The car certainly has worth to you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)