User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 17 of 17

  1. #11
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    There's nothing wrong with what you described lane777. Plenty of great writers and thinkers have had similar tendencies.

    Here's one description of GK Chesterton I posted in another thread:
    "Chesterton's background and training in the visual arts (he studied at the Slade School of Fine Art in London) always influenced his writing and very likely contributed to the preponderance of image over linear argument so many commentators have noted (some favorably, some not). But he was a thereotician at heart...He was never an academic and never aspired to be one; preferring to refer to himself as a journalist....As a journalist, he plunged into whatever topic presented itself; this has lead some to criticize him for spreading himself too thin, never staying with one topic long enough to achieve scholarly depth...Chesterton never trusted the persuasive power of "pure" reason (which he associated with insanity), so it not surprising that his rhetoric inclines towards something less pure -- something that more nearly approximates the language one might hear in the community (as Chesterton would put it) or a third class coach than the language one might hear in a lecture hall."

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...fs-relate.html

  2. #12
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Oh yes, let's not forget Lev Shestov here either
    "Shestov's philosophy is, at first sight, not a philosophy at all: it offers no systematic unity, no coherent set of propositions, no theoretical explanation of philosophical problems. Most of Shestov's work is fragmentary. With regard to the form (he often used aphorisms) the style may be deemed more web-like than linear, and more explosive than argumentative. The author seems to contradict himself on every page, and even seeks out paradoxes. This is because he believes that life itself is, in the last analysis, deeply paradoxical, and not comprehensible through logical or rational inquiry. Shestov maintains that no theory can solve the mysteries of life. Fundamentally, his philosophy is not 'problem-solving', but problem-generating, with a pronounced emphasis on life's enigmatic qualities."

    Lev Shestov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I still laugh whenever I read this.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    I am the same way..I have trouble sometimes speaking clearly..in other words, I stutter..sometimes, a little. It's because when someone asks me a question, or whatever, I automatically have a lot of retorts, and I struggle sometimes to get a few of the main points across..because most of the time, it's hard to wrap words, that mean so little in the face of an aspect, that it's often hard to speak clearly...words are my enemy sometimes.

    For wriring though, I feel I am a little better. I have a little more time to find what I'm looking for in my thoughts, before I type it down, and often, I end up changing and rechanging things..it's hard to "finish" something, because I always feel like it's not good enough, or I could have worded something differently..
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  4. #14
    Senior Member penelope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    249

    Default

    I consider myself to be a very good writer, but my speaking abilities are probably just average. I don't have any issues with public speaking though.

  5. #15
    Senior Member StoryOfMyLife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INfJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    619

    Default

    I definitely write better than I speak. For me, my thoughts come too quickly for my mouth to keep up well enough. I know what it is I want to say [sometimes], however it has a tendency to come out as some form of stuttering. Not in the way where I can't pronounce certain sounds correctly and on the first try, but where I'll hem and haw with 'um' 'and-and-and', and the like. Also, I stumble over words in speech unless I don't feel particularly harried to get out what needs saying. When I'm angry or excited seems to reflect my worst times trying to speak clearly *lol* It is then when I mix words up in my sentence, say things totally wrong, add extra syllables, or just drop the subject altogether because I can't even sort my thoughts out properly.
    Don't hate me because you're beautiful.
    4w5



    http://www.mangabullet.com/visitme/ImaginAries.png

  6. #16
    nevermore lane777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Oh yes, let's not forget Lev Shestov here either

    "Chesterton's background and training in the visual arts (he studied at the Slade School of Fine Art in London) always influenced his writing and very likely contributed to the preponderance of image over linear argument so many commentators have noted (some favorably, some not). But he was a thereotician at heart...He was never an academic and never aspired to be one; preferring to refer to himself as a journalist....As a journalist, he plunged into whatever topic presented itself; this has lead some to criticize him for spreading himself too thin, never staying with one topic long enough to achieve scholarly depth...Chesterton never trusted the persuasive power of "pure" reason (which he associated with insanity), so it not surprising that his rhetoric inclines towards something less pure -- something that more nearly approximates the language one might hear in the community (as Chesterton would put it) or a third class coach than the language one might hear in a lecture hall."

    I still laugh whenever I read this.
    I think I understand what he means when he states pure reason is "insanity," still, too bad he doesn't elaborate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    There's nothing wrong with what you described lane777. Plenty of great writers and thinkers have had similar tendencies.

    Here's one description of GK Chesterton I posted in another thread:

    "Shestov's philosophy is, at first sight, not a philosophy at all: it offers no systematic unity, no coherent set of propositions, no theoretical explanation of philosophical problems. Most of Shestov's work is fragmentary. With regard to the form (he often used aphorisms) the style may be deemed more web-like than linear, and more explosive than argumentative. The author seems to contradict himself on every page, and even seeks out paradoxes. This is because he believes that life itself is, in the last analysis, deeply paradoxical, and not comprehensible through logical or rational inquiry. Shestov maintains that no theory can solve the mysteries of life. Fundamentally, his philosophy is not 'problem-solving', but problem-generating, with a pronounced emphasis on life's enigmatic qualities."
    I really enjoyed this quote. I find it humourous, to think of how many people are aggravated by this kind of reasoning. I however, relate to his way of thinking... I often ask questions that could not possibly be answered with our limited resources; I love to get creative and speculate. Most people just respond with blank looks. No fun.
    To die would be an awfully big adventure - Peter Pan

    INFJ ~ 4w5 sp/sx ~ RLOAI ~ Inclusion e/w=1/0 (Melancholy Compulsive) Control: e/w=0/6 (Supine) Affection: e/w=4/0 (Phlegmatic Melancholy)

  7. #17
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lane777 View Post
    I think I understand what he means when he states pure reason is "insanity," still, too bad he doesn't elaborate.
    Oh Chesterton elaborated on this theme plenty of times in his books. Here's one example from Orthodoxy:
    "Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health."
    Or as he more simply put it elsewhere: "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason...Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom."

    This comes from Chapter 2 titled The Maniac.

Similar Threads

  1. Ethos. Speaking and Writing with Authority
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 02:26 AM
  2. [NT] It frustrates me to no end when people FAIL at simple logic
    By visaisahero in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 10:59 PM
  3. Do you fail at forethought and sacrificing the present?
    By raz in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-04-2009, 01:56 AM
  4. Raped at 8 and left for dead, a victim raises her voice
    By Nonsensical in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 01:30 PM
  5. The Future of Reading and Writing
    By kuranes in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-05-2008, 12:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO