One of the arguments of so-called 'Voice critics' can be raised is that that language is therefore not an appropriate means of knowledge or, as the respective basic language elements - such as terms - in the bottom of her being, far too arbitrary, are too subjective, as they would be able objective evidence to convey.
Using an example, I try the / a 'critical language' position as they met me in so many discussions, trace:
The term 'reality', for example, is a widely used term. On the surface it seems
when he would be understood by all that the German language is powerful, ...
one breaks through, however, this superficial Faith, and asks what the individual, the term 'reality' understanding exactly become evident that some extreme differences of opinion.
It almost seems as if everyone have their very own, subjective definition or understanding of the term 'reality'.
And therefore it can be stated that the one and only and true concept of reality, with certainty, no such thing - and because he does not exist, adheres to this concept, in consequence there is a relatively high degree of subjective arbitrariness, and this subjective arbitrariness leads to inevitable misunderstandings in communication.
The probability that the person with whom to communicate or speak, the same view and the same understanding of the notion of reality, like you do, is therefore more than just low.
is much more likely, however, that each of the caller's own views and his own understanding of the concept of 'bring', and included in the talk can be.
And is not already at the outset of the call stressed, which opinion and understanding which the individual conversation participants each from the concept of reality, they are then 'talk past' each other in the majority, and difficult to understand each other not to.
'What is said is for the Other incomprehensible and inconceivable! "
Would these difficulties, however, be reduced solely to the concept of 'reality', it would be certainly possible to find ways and means to alleviate these difficulties understanding.
Unfortunately reduce these difficulties in understanding not only on the concept 'reality'.
They are, in terms of ALL!
There is no notion that would adhere to his view and his understanding is not something subjective, arbitrary.
And given that refer to a conversation not just one or two terms, but a variety of different terms, use, and each term, almost each caller, in his very own, subjective way be perceived and understood, it is clear that the number of misunderstandings in a conversation is at least as great as the number of terms used, and that it is impossible in an interview almost is to understand the effort.
reason, and from a number of other reasons, language can never be an appropriate means of knowledge!
As far as the 'critical language' position.
Should that these 'critical language' position, successful communication would be impossible.
It is quite true: Sometimes people talk past each other - but, and that is the essential, they do not do this forever!
An example of successful communication, example, I experienced today again
I was with friends at a university lecture and the lecturer Professor we were informed, inter alia, where and when the next inspection to take place and what will be examination material.
I hope this will now not be a big surprise to all ...
but all my friends with whom I sat together for this course did not only WHEN and WHERE will be the test, they knew, moreover, to all the examination material exactly modest.
And as we all - as different us now are - solely on verbal communication with identification information in a particular area, have fallen, this is a proof that linguistic communication does not always fail, and that language very well - such as to and - at least to some extent is capable of (exact and inter-subjective) to provide information, knowledge and insights.
Using an example, I try the / a 'critical language' position as they met me in so many discussions, trace:
The term 'reality', for example, is a widely used term. On the surface it seems
when he would be understood by all that the German language is powerful, ...
one breaks through, however, this superficial Faith, and asks what the individual, the term 'reality' understanding exactly become evident that some extreme differences of opinion.
It almost seems as if everyone have their very own, subjective definition or understanding of the term 'reality'.
And therefore it can be stated that the one and only and true concept of reality, with certainty, no such thing - and because he does not exist, adheres to this concept, in consequence there is a relatively high degree of subjective arbitrariness, and this subjective arbitrariness leads to inevitable misunderstandings in communication.
The probability that the person with whom to communicate or speak, the same view and the same understanding of the notion of reality, like you do, is therefore more than just low.
is much more likely, however, that each of the caller's own views and his own understanding of the concept of 'bring', and included in the talk can be.
And is not already at the outset of the call stressed, which opinion and understanding which the individual conversation participants each from the concept of reality, they are then 'talk past' each other in the majority, and difficult to understand each other not to.
'What is said is for the Other incomprehensible and inconceivable! "
Would these difficulties, however, be reduced solely to the concept of 'reality', it would be certainly possible to find ways and means to alleviate these difficulties understanding.
Unfortunately reduce these difficulties in understanding not only on the concept 'reality'.
They are, in terms of ALL!
There is no notion that would adhere to his view and his understanding is not something subjective, arbitrary.
And given that refer to a conversation not just one or two terms, but a variety of different terms, use, and each term, almost each caller, in his very own, subjective way be perceived and understood, it is clear that the number of misunderstandings in a conversation is at least as great as the number of terms used, and that it is impossible in an interview almost is to understand the effort.
reason, and from a number of other reasons, language can never be an appropriate means of knowledge!
As far as the 'critical language' position.
Should that these 'critical language' position, successful communication would be impossible.
It is quite true: Sometimes people talk past each other - but, and that is the essential, they do not do this forever!
An example of successful communication, example, I experienced today again
I was with friends at a university lecture and the lecturer Professor we were informed, inter alia, where and when the next inspection to take place and what will be examination material.
I hope this will now not be a big surprise to all ...
but all my friends with whom I sat together for this course did not only WHEN and WHERE will be the test, they knew, moreover, to all the examination material exactly modest.
And as we all - as different us now are - solely on verbal communication with identification information in a particular area, have fallen, this is a proof that linguistic communication does not always fail, and that language very well - such as to and - at least to some extent is capable of (exact and inter-subjective) to provide information, knowledge and insights.
0 comments:
Post a Comment