5 ms·

Seems like this whole essay argues for clarity rather than simplicity — probably a better goal to aim for, too. He opposes simple to "fancy", but the opposite

Seems like this whole essay argues for clarity rather than simplicity — probably a better goal to aim for, too. He opposes simple to "fancy", but the opposite of simple isn't just "fancy", that's, well, a simplification. The opposite of "simple" writing may be: "rich" writing, "complex" writing, none of which are particularly problematic for Graham's goal provided that they're paired with enough clarity. That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history, most of which, by the standard of this essay, could be considered complex. As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed.

haswell 6y ago
> That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history, most of which, by the standard of this essay, could be considered complex. - Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc? - Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly. > As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed. This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay. You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing. If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why?
- davidivadavid 6y ago
  > - Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc? Great question, can't say I'm able to answer it authoritatively. I would guess most works of literature, essays and speeches, even at the time they were produced, tend to be a fair bit more complex than what the average person is used to. Especially if they come from eras with lower literacy. > - Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly. It certainly does. > This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay. It's a pretty simple sentence. What's tripping you up? > You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing. No. I'm saying that thinking "pure ideas devoid of any language" is a naive concept to anyone who's researched that topic a minimal amount. I wasn't flexing. > If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why? That's not my intent at all. I'm providing context to my judgment. If that was my intent, I would have said: "If you don't have experience in the philosophy of language, don't write about this topic." Good thing is — I'm not a Nazi, so I tend not to do that kind of stuff.

haswell 6y ago

> That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history, most of which, by the standard of this essay, could be considered complex. - Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc? - Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly. > As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed. This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay. You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing. If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why?

davidivadavid 6y ago
> - Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc? Great question, can't say I'm able to answer it authoritatively. I would guess most works of literature, essays and speeches, even at the time they were produced, tend to be a fair bit more complex than what the average person is used to. Especially if they come from eras with lower literacy. > - Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly. It certainly does. > This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay. It's a pretty simple sentence. What's tripping you up? > You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing. No. I'm saying that thinking "pure ideas devoid of any language" is a naive concept to anyone who's researched that topic a minimal amount. I wasn't flexing. > If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why? That's not my intent at all. I'm providing context to my judgment. If that was my intent, I would have said: "If you don't have experience in the philosophy of language, don't write about this topic." Good thing is — I'm not a Nazi, so I tend not to do that kind of stuff.