Dachshund wrote: ↑
Fri May 10, 2019 3:22 am
gaffo wrote: ↑
Fri May 10, 2019 2:48 am
Belinda wrote: ↑
Wed May 08, 2019 10:52 am
The idea is that beauty is an indicator of truth and goodness . Beauty indicates the presence also of truth and goodness. This theme is common to all
I know that is the mindset "truth=beauty". think it is semtimental hogwash myself.
truth may be purely ugly and or evil.
truth is not knowable, but not one to be biased and assume beauty has more truth than ugly, when both are equal and have nothing to do with Truth.
You're right that the notion Beauty, Truth and Morality (goodness) are organically interfused in an absolute/eternal etc "One" is hard to swallow. It's basically a neoplatonic, mystical,theological doctrine that was promulgated somewhere between the 5th and 6th centuries by a medieval Christian scholar called Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite. Pseudo-Dionysus was, as you suggest, a super-sensitive, emotional, hyper-sentimental dude who basically lost the plot and disappeared up his own mystical butt-hole.
I'll get back to Belinda about all of this nonsense anon.
per "philosphy of lanquage" - sub thread "spelling"
my post on the matter:
Re: Is proper spelling important?
Post by gaffo » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:14 am
Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:59 pm
My greatest friend spells words phonetically. I realized if I had discarded him as easily as I have others online who can't spell properly I would have missed out on my best friend. I used to see other's spelling mistakes as their lack of intelligence just as I see 'text speak' as laziness/stupidity. Other people may see my own poor grammar or sentence structure as the same.
I have become more forgiving over many years now. I recognize that languages will change as words fall into history and new words are created or change definition. Some people will have dyslexia, some will only be able to spell words phonetically, etc. How important is proper spelling anyways?
There is a quote that is often attributed to both Mark Twain and Thomas Jefferson that is about lacking imagination if only spelling a word one way.
gaffo's post below:
I have Dyslexia - mild thankfully, i loathe English because though it claims to be phonetic, it really is not.
it could! be - and i made a "System" years ago to make it phonetic, but being a no-body, its just a mental fantasy (wish) on my part. If Englsih were re-writen in my "System" English would be truly phonetic. my self made mental fantasy rules for English is quite simple.
1. no silent letters - remove all of them in words that have them.
2. remove the letter "K", it was imported by the Romans from the Greeks and is a foreign letter- identical to "C" in all ways - so remove it, all words with "k" in them shall be respelled with the letter "C"
3. no double consonents! - and so no silly rules about long sounding/short sounding prior vowel letters (the whole "vowel phonetics depends upon a LATTER letter/double letter is dumb! - it breaks "real time phonetics" - one has to see the latter letters in the word in real time in reading the damn word!
4. limit the less used letters to their sole sound - so "Y" only in words with "yu" - not in words where it is used instead of "i" (each letter should have it own sound, so all uses of "y" in cases of words where it is used instead of "i" should be respelled with "i" (etc for all letters! - no duplication allowed).
5. short form phonetics of vowels should be ONE vowel letter, long form should always be Double Vowels! (thus removing the double consonate bullshit, silent letter "e" at end of word bullcrap too.
those five rules fix all spellings.
in will rewrite the above in proper phonetic English now.
I hav dislexea - mild thancfule, i louth English becus tho it claams to be funetic, it reely is not.
it cud be - and i maad a "sistem" yeers ago to maac it fonetic, but beeing a no-bodi, its just a mental fantasi (wish) on mi part. if English wur ree-ritin in my "sistem" English wud be truuli fonetic. my self maad mental fantasi ruuls for English is quiit simpl.
1. no silent letrs - reemoov al of them in words that hav them.
2. reemoov the letr "K", it wus imported bii the Romans from the Greecs and is a foren letr - indentical to "c" in al wais - so remoov it, al words with "K" in them shal bee respeled with the letr "C"
3. no dubl consunats! - and so no sili ruuls about long sounding/short sounding prior voul letrs (the hool "voul fonetics depends upon a LATR letr/dubl letr is dum! - it braacs "reel tiim fonetics" - won has to see the latr letrs in the words in reel tiim in reeding the dam word!
4. limit the les usd letrs to thair sol sound - so "Y" onli in words with "yu' - not in words whar it is usd insted of "i" (eech letr shud hav it oun sound, so al uses of "Y" in cases of words whar it is usd insted of "I" shud be respeled with "i' (ect for al letrs!) - no duplicashum aloud!
5.short form fonetics of vouls shud be WUN voul letr, long form shud alwais be Dubl Vouls! (thus remooving the dubl consonat boolshit, silent letr "e" at end of word boolcrap too.
simple example of rule 5: