Detlev Six
Monday July 5th, 2010

Ars Construendi Vexilla and Desertion.

What would this blog be without Roland the brains and Chris the spirit who always writes acid comments.

Now, Roland the brains accused the spirit of committing the worst of all crimes: lack of wit. I disagree.

Chris cannot find the “ars construendi vexilla” in his native tongue.

Why should he?

The concept of “ars construendi vexilla” is easy to describe:

If more than one person, that is a minimum of two, discuss something, you have to make sure they are on one level.
And when I say discussion, I do not mean just talking. Let it be clear that we are talking really important issues, rather than whether or not the German soccer team might suffice as world champion. I am talking issues like:

Life, death, God, justice, freedom, the price of beer.

Rupert Lay took this self-evident concept and miraculously structured an entire evening of philosophy lectures crowned by a nice syllogism around it. That is a technique drawing the right conclusions from the wrong premise.
All that remains is desertion.

Dear Chris, please remain the person you are, even if you are closer to the “ars construendi vexilla” than you think.

Six
(Translated by EG)

5 Kommentare zu “Ars Construendi Vexilla and Desertion.”

  1. rd (Monday July 5th, 2010)

    Hi Detlev! Du bist witzig und spritzig wie immer.

    Aber:

    Die Kunst seit mehr als 2000 Jahren ist es, die Prämissen (soweit möglich) streng dialektisch auf Wahrhaftigkeit zu prüfen und dann natürlich formal und inhaltlich die korrekten Schlüsse zu ziehen. Und beides ist alles andere als trivial – wenn überhaupt möglich.

    Insofern ist Fahnenbildung noch der konstruktivste Versuch, das Unmögliche zu schaffen, nämlich wahrhaftigen Erkenntnisgewinn. Und erstaunlicherweise gelingt das meistens ein klein wenig – dies allerdings dann von großem Wert.

    Vielleicht schreibe ich mal einen Artikel mit beispielhaften Ergebnissen aus Prozessen der Fahnenbildung.

    Aber vielleicht sollten wir den Großmeister der Dialektik Klaus-Jürgen Grün in die Diskussion involvieren 🙂

  2. six (Monday July 5th, 2010)

    Roland, ich bin gespannt auf Deine Beispiele. Die Wahrheit is’ auf’m Platz.

  3. Chris Wood (Tuesday July 6th, 2010)

    What should I say? I do not see myself as a dachshund. I just try to correct mistakes, with the optimistic hope that my mistakes will also be corrected. I try to bring in a little humour. OK, Cambridge humour tends to be slightly brutal, but it is nevertheless a towering achievement of civilisation, on a level with football.
    Otherwise, although I do not really understand it, I like what Detlev writes.

    Regarding Roland’s comment, the only ancient Greek philosophical conclusion of value to us was Socrates conclusion that they knew nothing. And he said that only to provoke. He did not really believe it. But perhaps Socrates was really good. Almost all we know of him was reported by Plato, who was certainly pretty muddled and may have reported badly. There were ancient Greeks, mainly in Alexandria, who had useful mathematical and scientific ideas. The Greek philosophers understood logic, but was this new? Their other (philosophical) views were based on even greater ignorance of the universe than ours.
    Only the culture of science moves towards the truth.
    Die Wahrheit is’ auf’m Platz.

  4. Detlev Six (Tuesday July 6th, 2010)

    Okay, Chris, das Bild mit dem Wadlbeisser war ein wenig zu sehr der Pointe verpflichtet und nicht so sehr der Wahrhaftigkeit. Ich sehe Dich ähnlich, wie Du Dich selbst beschreibst. Finde allerdings schade, dass Du meine Beiträge nicht wirklich verstehst. Ich werde an der Klarheit meiner Mitteilungen arbeiten.

  5. Chris Wood (Thursday July 8th, 2010)

    That about Socrates perhaps being good, was only about him as a philosopher. He was a terrible intellectual snob, anti-democraticm, and not nice to his wife. She loved him although he refused to get a proper job and was ridiculed by many.

Kommentar verfassen

*