I appreciate writing in the classic style.

Few it seems, if at all beyond yourself, wish to affirm that sentiment.

Few it seems, if at all beyond yourself, wish to affirm that sentiment. — Vessuvius

It's easier to get an audience to engage if you don't make an effort to make yourself harder to understand (well, some audiences might find it mysterious, but being mysterious is only interesting if you intend to con people). For anyone who is not a native speaker, your text also contains too many specialized terms to be easiliy readable.

I recognise the truth which belies that transition, should it arise, yet I cannot permit myself to be dissuaded from that toward which I have striven, since, with such ease. One's usage of language, as I regard the course, ought to exemplify much beauty through the form in which it manifests. I see no reason which would vindicate one's intent for mere detraction from that attribute, however bound by subjective consideration the former may be, inasmuch as it be acted upon for its own sake, in the end.

I had thought it the case, by presumption, that of all the domains' in which I could rest no other would endure in passivity, my preference with respect to both manner of speech, and the written form, to an extent equal to that which would be conferred, here. It seems I had been mistaken, to ascribe much other than fault, alone, unto that same belief.

In the day of “r u goin 2 c the flick 2night”, there’s great difficulty in distinguishing class from vanity, elegance from arrogance.

I imagine that only through the prideful, as it be predicated by our state of regress, or rather, drawn in contrast therewith, can be yielded the inclination to persist in either course, in disregard of what each may entail, as consequence. One needn't descend toward the depths of vanity, to ensure that there be no incurrence of loss in the manner of pride, which ought to be.

There was a time in which we bore reflection unto that; forms of pride which be healthful and impart much betterment for those in whom it be preserved. Yet, at present, our heart's and mind's grow ever more impotent, and callous, without even the faintest prospect of abatement of its intensity hitherto known, in sight.

We are wholly fucked, man. I have yet to encounter reason to suspect otherwise.

@Vessuvius If you could give a one line summary of your thesis, please, so the debate can be about that and not the writing style.

Think of how excited people will be when you try English! -Or try some proof-reading. The "classic" style was never permissive of plain error, nor obscurity, except when the goal.

It is true of English in 2019 what Richmond Lattimore said of it c. 1951, that we do not have a poetic dialect. And to paraphrase only slightly, that we should aspire to be rapid, plain, and direct in substance, thought, and expression. Or if you don't like a Homeric standard of clarity, perhaps study the rhetorical practices of the character of Kent in King Lear.

Or if you must affect a flowery and ornate style, try to do it better! Because clearly at the moment you are more interested in display than sense.

We are wholly fucked, man. I have yet to encounter reason to suspect otherwise. — Vessuvius

Hah! :rofl:

(Extemporaneous guffaw) Damn straight!!!!

Worth a decent chuckle, wasn’t it???

Yes, and instructive of the power of English straight up!

The veracity of your assertion is reliant upon whether that for which I sought to offer conveyance(which hadn't been the case with respect to the latter; contradiction), had in truth been with contradiction, if not inconstancy in form. One could argue the same of those whom had been most prevalent in their times yet whose work remains lauded even in our era, though not for the sake of clarity in expression, rather the attainment of mere insight had taken precedence.

The course wherein sense is conferred, bears equal weight in my mind, with that which exemplifies, in regard to the same, beauty in form.

It is evident in my eye's that you had spoken(wrote) with a tone of facetiousness, and faint derision. In what respect is either to fulfill the criteria you have set forth? It can facilitate no betterment, and incites only confliction, for what sake had it then been, that toward which you have striven, since it cannot be vindicated by any other means?

Sorry. I just couldn’t help it. I had to, I just HAD to.......

“.....For this reason, when it happens that there exists only a single word to express a certain conception, and this word, in its usual acceptation, is thoroughly adequate to the conception, the accurate distinction of which from related conceptions is of great importance, we ought not to employ the expression improvidently, or, for the sake of variety and elegance of style, use it as a synonym for other cognate words. It is our duty, on the contrary, carefully to preserve its peculiar signification, as otherwise it easily happens that when the attention of the reader is no longer particularly attracted to the expression, and it is lost amid the multitude of other words of very different import, the thought which it conveyed, and which it alone conveyed, is lost with it.....

(Sigh)

The tough guy? It has the touch.

We ourselves and all others bear the liberty to act as we each deem necessary, in particular instances, yet remain bound by an implicit 'contract' which offers dictation as to the manner in which we ought to act by virtue of consensus, lest we infringe upon the liberty of another by lending ourselves to infliction; thus greatly influencing our behavior and relations with those of the rest. What is the extent to which it guides the course of our lives, and to what end must it subsist as principle, if the state to which it pertains and on which it rests, is to be maintained readily in its cohesion?

though not for the sake of clarity in expression, rather the attainment of mere insight had taken precedence(Johann Fichte, Immanuel Kant, G.W.F Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche and so forth). — Vessuvius

Don't confuse clarity with difficulty. These peoples' thoughts are difficult. And they're writing clear. It had to be; they had to be. And they were writing to readers that understood them - especially true of Hegel. We are not that audience, so we have difficulty upon difficulty. Read an hundred pages of Kant, though, and just see what reading "muscles" you develop. You'll skip through sonnets as if they were Dick and Jane.

I have sought to apprehend much of the essence contained therein, though in vain, of each individual; thus far I have nearly attained completion in my reading of the 'Critique Of Pure Reason; the latter's seminal work. I have begun study of the former's, entitled 'Science Of Logic' as well, since, and have yet to venture beyond the first chapter thereof for fear of not garnering apprehension of its content, in full and succumbing to what is otherwise as consequence in compensation of that deficit; misapprehension, which is itself a greater hindrance to one's understanding than none at all.

While I concede to the merit of your final argument, it is the case more often than not(and is thus true) that failure to preserve clarity in understanding of that of which another had spoken, entails difficulty for the recipient; the converse bears truthfulness, also(vice versa). In that sense each notion is interrelated, and as such the extent with which either manifests may be determined by that of the other, through the depth of its own manifestation.

"As brevity is the soul of wit(in which I have shown little aptitude), I will be brief-er."

The depth of clarity in one's understanding of the meaning expressed through a particular statement, or collective thereof, influences the same attribution with respect to the difficulty found in one's course of the apprehension sought; in concurrence with the extent to which one feels' it difficult to apprehend, whereupon the latter reflects often unto how clear it seems in the eye's of the subject as a matter of thought.

What if dog was spelled "C-A-T"?

Sorry, Vessuvius, too much incoherence.

The lesser the degree of clarity which one feels' a particular statement, or proposition, to entail, the lesser the difficulty one shall find, in their apprehension of the same statement. It is a relation of equivalence, amongst the subject's perception of what is to be apprehended.

Suppose for sake of argument that one wishes, by which I refer to the subject, to garner some semblance to understanding of the notion termed 'Deontological Ethical Theory'. Therein lies the condition in which the subject has no true endowment of mind, and thus is absent particular aptitude for that which necessitates intellectual depth, and rigor.

We then find a corresponding subject, whose intention is indistinguishable from the previous, yet is constrained by no manner of deficit in intellect, whether that manifest in the potentiality of their faculties, or breadth of understanding, to which the notion in sight has come to pertain; neither is of much pertinence, insofar as the central tenant remain. One can infer from the variance as made evident through each, that all lie at a path of divergence from one another in spite of what had been sought (the assigned properties of that which each had hoped to apprehend) persisting in constancy, unchanged.

Clarity in apprehension influences difficulty in the same; difficulty in apprehension as per the presumption that it be coherent in truth is independent of the subject; the extent of difficulty one encounters in that course determines the perceived clarity with which it manifests.

For the sake of brevity;
Assuming objective coherence, the perceived clarity of any particular statement determines its perceived difficulty in apprehension by the subject, independent of all confounding aspects.

A truth toward which it seems to me, you have remained blind.

I have come to present a fertile ground on which a great many others may predicate judgement; though you subsist in a state of eagerness for derision as cast unto the former therewith.

Not derision, just fact. Do you know how to parse a sentence? Try parsing some of yours. And I see you've been doing some after-the-fact editing/proof-reading. Better if done ante....

It is evident that you had partaken in an act of derision, and to my own detriment all the same; yet you offer no recognition of the reason for which that is the case, nor as to how what you have sought to profess can be granted credence of any form.

Once more you made failure to differentiate instances of truthfulness; that which is the case, from what are to be regarded as matters of normativity as bound by subjective consideration.

If I haven't known how to affect a particular course, how am I to achieve its consequence?

"And I see you've been doing some after-the-fact editing/proof-reading."

I imagine it to be fortunate that while blind to much truth, you are not toward all.

It is evident that you had partaken in an act of derision — Vessuvius

Now we see your colours. I simply pointed out that

Or try some proof-reading. The "classic" style was never permissive of plain error, nor obscurity, except when the goal.... if you must affect a flowery and ornate style, try to do it better! Because clearly at the moment you are more interested in display than sense. — tim wood

And,

Don't confuse clarity with difficulty. — tim wood

And,

Sorry, Vessuvius, too much incoherence. — tim wood

And,

Not derision, just fact. Do you know how to parse a sentence? Try parsing some of yours. And I see you've been doing some after-the-fact editing/proof-reading. Better if done ante.... — tim wood

Please make clear the derision.

The forms of derision which had come to manifest in accordance with that upon which you had sought to act, arose implicitly; all the while standing no less evident than before.

"Think of how excited people will be when you try English! -Or try some proof-reading. The "classic" style was never permissive of plain error, nor obscurity, except when the goal. It
is true of English in 2019 what Richmond Lattimore said of it c. 1951, that we do not have a poetic dialect. And to paraphrase only slightly, that we should aspire to be rapid, plain, and direct in substance, thought, and expression. Or if you don't like a Homeric standard of clarity, perhaps study the rhetorical practices of the character of Kent in King Lear. If you must affect a flowery and ornate style, try to do it better! Because clearly at the moment you are more interested in display than sense."

That of which I had made conveyance at the time, wasn't itself in reproach, nor had come to warrant either supposition unto which you ascribe merit, falsely. I had in earnest hoped to exemplify beauty in the manner of sentiment for which I persisted though not for loss of clarity in expression of the same. My intent had thus been to appropriate a balance amongst each such that beauty and insight, remain commensurate with one another, and coalesce. Your assertion wherein commitment of failure in pursuance of attainment of all thereof for the sake of each as it be conferred on my behalf, was in truth, unfounded and bore no entrenchment in the rational.

"Don't confuse clarity with difficulty."

I hadn't conflated either; I merely yielded allusion to the central form therewith, and the relation amongst each, while in concurrence ensuring recognition of their distinctiveness preserved thusly, as separate notions.

"Sorry, Vessuvius, too much incoherence."

The series of conditions upon which your statement of fault is predicated insofar as I bear it, must offer destitution for that only through which can the latter be vindicated; imparting credence to the contrast between that which is the case, and the subject thereof as a matter of truth, in perception.

"Not derision, just fact. Do you know how to parse a sentence? Try parsing some of yours. And I see you've been doing some after-the-fact editing/proof-reading. Better if done ante.... "

Neither of which has bearing on the veracity of my judgement, nor is to make manifest pertinence in any of its myriad forms (is inconsequential with respect to the heart of such confliction, which has garnered ever more precedence, since.)

As it seems clear in my eye's that you have striven to determine the advent of much fault, in which my prior actions had been the catalyst thereby, in spite of absence of commitment of the aforementioned as granted on my behalf. You regard all of that which I have hitherto sought to convey on the outset in contempt. Either criterion alone, would fulfill that which serves to permit another, to deem such a course as an act of derision; as a whole none other (beyond 'derisive') shall suffice to designate.

"Now we see your colours."
Never once before had I sought to conceal them, nor lessen the clarity with which its image finds' appearance.

I laughed so hard at this LOL