Reading Summary 4
In his Essay “Universalist Grandeur and Analytic Philosophy”, Richard Rorty breaks down analytical philosophy and its relation to modern politics. He claims that “Nowadays, serious political argument is about how this goal might be reached, not about whether that goal is the correct one to pursue.” Rorty is saying that political objectives and values are the same-but the differences between political opinions stem from course of action instead of direction. Rorty than compares and contrasts analytical and nonanalytical philosophy. Rorty says that “The difference between these two broad areas of interest is highlighted by the fact that the split between “analytic” philosophy and “nonanalytic” philosophy (the kind of philosophy sometimes called “continental”) has little relevance to books that touch on political issues.” He is asserting that in the public eye, analytical philosphers, such as Frank Ramsey and Bertrand Russell, inadvertently connect their macrophilosophy to modern political issues and their writings are applicable to these issues, whereas people think that nonanalytical philosophers such as Hegel and Heidegger have work that is more irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Rorty argues that all of these philosophers are useful in addressing the broader concept of humanity, which is relevant in every argument we have.
Rorty, Richard. “Universalist Grandeur and Analytic Philosophy.” The Hedgehog Review, 11 Oct. 2004, hedgehogreview.com/issues/meritocracy-and-its-discontents/articles/universalist-grandeur-and-analytic-philosophy.
Reading Summary 5
In George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language”, he argues that most people use language as an instrument and weapon for their own devices, but in reality, it should be used for “natural growth.” He explains that “the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes”, and that “individual writers” are not the ones responsible for creating this. Orwell goes on to assert that while they may not be responsible for the existence of this decline, they are responsible for contributing to the reinforcement of this narrative. After explaining the issues and “ugliness” with this newfound form of writing, Orwell breaks down the rest of his paper into the consequences of this writing: Dying Metaphors, Operators or Verbal False Limbs, Pretentious Diction, and Meaningless words. Metaphors no longer are used without a loss of vividness. Sentences are unnecessarily elongated to portray symmetry. Fancy words are used to falsely portray elegance. Often these words are just there and carry no substance to the writing. Orwell says that these issues are curable and that it is necessary for individuals to change their writing style in an effort to accomplish this.
Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” George Orwell: Politics and the English Language, Horizan, Apr. 1946, www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/.
Reading Summary 6
In his essay “How to Talk to Friends and Family Who Share Conspiracy Theories”, Charlie Warzel argues that those who subscribe to fringe theories such as qAnon, pizzagate, and anti-vaxxer ideologies are dangerous and need to be addressed. Despite the election results, people will still believe in the election conspiracy theories. Warzel makes this argument in the form of a guide on how to talk to and help friends and family who hold these views. He explains the importance of questioning sources of information, using past theories that were disproven, respect, and patience, as well as knowing when to end the conversation.
Warzel, Charlie. “How to Talk to Friends and Family Who Share Conspiracy Theories.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/opinion/qanon-conspiracy-theories-family.html.
