Response to Post

I received this post in response to my last entry:

You'd read them anyway so why not structure what you think that you learn from them.
Since you are comprehending comprehension from other direstions what does remain valid are the words.

I would like to respond to this question because it deals directly with my thinking about how I'm thinking these days. First, the question of structure. Structure is a dangerous thing. I take the use of the word in this situation to mean something close to the word "align," as in "Can I align the thoughts of the books I read and create a synthesis of the content?" In this sense of the word, I can readily answer that I have done this. I synthesize all that I read and then create output in the form of writing. Writing is important because it helps to align disparate thoughts that had previously only existed in the brain. This is the same with talking out loud, as in "talking something through." This kind of structure is, I think, helpful.

In another sense, however, structure is problematic. Structuring thoughts in a certain way concretizes them and, though this might not be a problem as far as casual writing goes, by cementing thoughts, people tend to cement the way they think about things. It is important to analyze things from many directions. I don't think I'm saying anything profound here, but I want to attempt to show an issue that exists with the word "structure."

As far as the second part of the comment goes, I would have to object more strongly. The words are by no means valid. When dealing with Plato and Aristotle, any translation for that fact, the words are completely (in)valid. The 2500 years that have passed since Aristotle's Poetics, for example, have allowed many people to utilize Aristotle's words in a way that would benefit those people at the time. The first thing you must do when looking at writings of Aristotle, Plato or anybody upon whose ideas have been built entire schools of philosophy, is trouble the language being used. By conceiving of other ways in which the words and ideas of works such as the Poetics could have been intended, you will gain new perspectives on the material. An example is the word "catharsis." Catharsis is understood in America today to mean either a purgation or an installation of pity and fear. It is not know what exactly is to be purged and for whom the installation of pity and fear is intended. Scholars have suggested that "catharsis" was used differently 150 years before Aristotle used it. This is important because the apex of Greek tragedy was occurring 150 years before Aristotle wrote anything, thus "catharsis" could mean any number of things. Specifically it has been translated as "the swearing of an oath," to give one example, which confuses things to no end. Before I ramble on, I'll just say that words are not "valid" because they are endowed with different meanings depending on who is using them or reading them.

If anybody wants to hear more about this, please let me know.