Submitted by Maxwellsdemon17 t3_y75g2l in philosophy
Reply to comment by pangeapedestrian in "In other words, an important lesson we can draw from Hans Blumenberg’s writings on myth is that the dangerous political myths of our own times as well as those of the past can only be countered by inventing new myths, telling better stories, and writing more convincing histories." by Maxwellsdemon17
Its the title of this post...
I stated myself i don't think the author is that nieve naive.
Its simply a suggestion against using such language.
The article actually addresses this point. It's just a quote the conclusion from a much larger discussion.
Also, naive.
Lol brutal spelling on my part
Again i never said it was the end all solution, i even implied i think the author doesnt intend that.
Im advising against using language that makes it seem such.
Isn’t it actually “naïve”?
Diacritics are not part of the English alphabet, so it’s just alternate spelling.
Is that true? Definitely useful though. The diacritical lets you know that it is two syllables, that the "a" and the "i" are separate.
That's a cool word i didn't know. Thanks.
The NYT uses them though
They’re not the arbiters of English.
Hahaha fair, i didn't know how to get the umlaut though.
[deleted]
Complaining that someone commented on something that literally exists (and in a non-trivial position: the title) seems like the opposite of good epistemic guidelines.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments