I do it all the time.
I'm an addict.
I read the dictionary.
I have an enormous Oxford Illustrated Dictionary.
It has tons of cool pictures in it and it's thicker than any phonebook I've ever seen.
You could knock someone out if you hit them over the head with it.
I'll see or hear a word somewhere on TV or in a book and I'll scoop up my dictionary to look it up.
Most times, it's a word that I've heard before but its meaning eludes me.
Once there, I cannot stop looking up words.
I looked up words for almost 45 minutes the other night.
The pictures in it are also cool and quite detailed.
Knowledge is power!
Are you guilty of this too?
My girlfriend constantly tells me I am making up words, so I resort to the dictionary to prove her wrong. Sometimes it's just a threat because I am making them up, but other times I'm pleasantly correct.
That's fantastical.
I preffer reading non-fiction with a dictionary nearby to increase ones vocabulary instead of reading a dictionary without reason. My dictionary readings started with my journey into philosophy in the late 80's and early 90's. Though I still read a lot I don't use the dictionary as much, except to maybe check spelling if I feel it's important enough.
Encyclopedias are good reads as I find "subjects" a bit more interesting that "words". Words are very limited. Words never convey truth. Words are important only because that is all we have outside of our own experiences. Words can expand ones mind to a certain rudimentary extent. Maybe if we can get people to understand words we can all advance to the next level, but then again they have been trying that for a long time. Maybe words are the hinderance to perfection.
What's great about words is that after you figure out the fallacy of the written word then you begin to see the fallacy and error of all "subject" matter. Things get more interesting from there.
Having correct spelling is like knowing the exact dates for History. Understanding periods of History are important, but the "exact" dates in History are only important when a pivital part determines some type of larger meaning and then you can simply look it up as needed. Usually you already know the timeline.
Correct spelling and exact dates are usually for those into "impressing" upon a crowd as in directing them towards certain ideas. At least that is what I've found to be true. Otherwise words have no meaning and even take away from the meaning of all things. Words can help for a short while then you must escape from them. They can be used as tools, but not really necessary. Consider the degree of a thing and the size of a moment.
The question is "Why do we read?". Illumination can happen through reading and the use of words. It just takes longer. Use all towards your own advantage with the Divine standard to guide you. All things do indeed aim towards the good in one way or another. Enjoy the dictionary ASHTHECAT.
Now for your viewing pleasure I give you GIGLI.
........
Damn, I hate when Scott gets on tear. It makes my head hurt.
Scott Wrote:
>> Correct spelling and exact dates are usually for those into "impressing" upon a crowd as in directing them towards certain ideas.
I think correct spelling shows (a) respect for the language and (b) a positive discipline of the mind.
For me, typos and simple misques are easily forgiven (and overlooked), but when one clearly spells incorrectly because they just don't care (don't care to learn, can't be bothered to be correct, etc) it conveys mental/intellectual weakness. I'll admit to being less likely to give that persons ideas the same consideration as one who uses the language correctly.
Have you read a lot of period pieces (non fiction or historical fiction) from the late 18th early 19th century? The use of both written and spoken (as conveyed in the writing) language was beautiful. Every person, no matter of class, took care to express themselves with eloquence. Poetry in Wales was considered a gift of nearly divine importance.
Now, in contemporary America, the use of language is vulgar, lowest common denomenator laziness. Everything is shortened (J-Lo for your favorite actress, :), for example), which really bothers me. I think "soon" we will begin speaking in grunts. My Mom taught my daughter "huh" during a visit a few months ago, and it literally took my wife and I months to get that out of her vocabulary.
Like it or not, how we speak and write reflects on our education and social (not economic) class. Reading is the fuel for how we in turn speak and write. So, if we read a lot of prose with poor spelling, I believe that 'essence' of mental laziness seeps into our patterns as well.
It's just my opinion.
As for dates in history, knowing the dates in some contexts is important, but not usually. I agree that knowing the sense of the sequence of events and an approximate timeline is what counts.
I don't know whether I should pipe up here or not. As an English Teacher (among other things), proper spelling and grammar are essential to me. I tend to agree with ulthar's views over Scott's in this case; most of the misspellings and poor word choices I come across reflect a lack of respect for the language and an intellectual laziness; the general attitude I encounter is "you know what I mean" or "hear what I mean, not what I say." Both attitudes are dangerous in my opinion. We don't even try to communicate well anymore, and the result is increasing prejudice and violence (no, I'm not saying that misspellings cause gang violence and bigotry, but they are one symptom of a larger problem that contributes to many of our social ills). The only people who seem to demand exacting care with words outside of academia are lawyers, and then only to win a case, not usually to find the truth of a matter. Scott is right that words sometimes come up short, but they are all we've got to work with until we can surgically install thought interpretation screens into our foreheads or develop true telepathy.
That said, I always appreciate it when someone has obviously taken the time to consider what they've written and how it comes across. However, boards like this are informal enough that I don't worry about typos or misused words. I read this board every day, but you won't find anywhere where I've corrected someone's spelling or grammar; this isn't the place for it.
In response to the original question, I used to read the dictionary more than I do now; now, I'm more into reading about word origins. It's always fun to make connections between an Old English word and a modern variation that is used in a totally different context but still retains a semblance of its original meaning. But then again, I may be a bit odd.
Let me add a few words : )
Well stated Ulthar and Derf. Grunts and four letter words are indeed vocabulary. Everything people do these days are nothing but grunts and four letter words. People are crude and lazy. I understand your frustration with the whole thing Ulthar. The main thing is the world as a whole doesn't really have a goal and the reason for learning that follows having a real goal. The world will no doubt learn this sooner or later. Why should they learn when the world moves by a never ending series of weak impulses and meaningless pursuits. Something inside doesn't motivate them to even read. They consume the earth outside the Divine will. Even the earth itself has it's own way of cleansing itself. Truth will prevail in the end.
No doubt they should read 18th century literature for what it is. It is very well written and except for some of the sciences of the age it is the very best for literature and philosophy. Words have served only a few. Words serve to civilize society at one level and also restict the world depending on how "words" are interpreted and used.
There is a time and place for everything under the sun. Even "words" from a dictionary.
Scott,
When you talk about "Divine Will," are you speaking in Aristotelian terms, where every physical thing has a divine "ideal" form and a corrupted "worldly" form, and what we see is corrupted and therefore "less" than the ideal, or are you talking in some other terms? You (almost) quote Ecclesiastes 3 in your concluding remark, which could point toward a Christian ideology, while your other remarks point toward a more New Age, "Gaia"-esque pseudo-spirituality. I don't really like to put people into strict categories like that, but I'm trying to understand your posts a bit better. Depending on your base outlook, I may agree more or less with you. As a Christian myself, I see a definite purpose in life, and sometimes that encroaches on my ability to understand others (like those you mention) that have no purpose but to live day to day.
Well I did make both a Ecclesiastes reference and a Aristotelian reference. If I start with my theology right here then this could take a while and everyone would prabably take it the wrong way. It's an extremely strong revelation that really needs a second person to write it down. I'm just the messenger.
Actually looking for a scribe of sorts to write it all down Derf. Any volunteers? I garantee that you have never heard this before as I have only told a few people.
I'm not really sure where to go with that, Scott. I've sworn myself off of talking religion on this board unless asked a question (I was sounding too much like the proverbial wet blanket, and I got tired of hearing myself; I can only imagine what others thought--no need to elaborate, people). I have my own very strong beliefs, so I think I'll let this discussion go before it turns into an unwinnable debate. And if you start preaching the Gospel of Gigli, I'm afraid I'll have to join the others in ridiculing it.
Maybe it's the fact that I'm really tired and not really taking this all in, but this thread has certainly become quite different. I'm all for theological discussions, however my mind at the moment is kind of confused by all this talk. I guess when I'm more conscious I'll pay closer attention and understand what's going on!
Although I understand people's hesitations when it comes to talking religion and theology and what-not [it can be quite the touchy subject] I was having a discussion with a friend about Aristotle and Socrates last night and am kind of interested in exactly what Scott is on about, just as a curiousity thing.
But like I said, maybe now is not the right time for me to do that considering my frame of mind at the moment.
I did it all the time when I was a kid (I was an early reader and sort of a bookworm), much less now, where I prefer to interpret words' meanings from their context (sorry excuse for being a lazy f**k, I know). I have become sort of addicted to Wikipedia, though, whenever I enter it for anything I ened up opening half a dozen links, and sometimes they teke me far, far away from my starting topic.
Neville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wikipedia, though, whenever I enter it for
> anything I ened up opening half a dozen links, and
> sometimes they teke me far, far away from my
> starting topic.
Me too. Actually, I'm a terrible one for any kind of reference material, and always have been, whether it be a dictionary, encyclopedia or the internet. I'm too curious. On my way to finding the bit of information I need, I see too much interesting stuff on the way. I just have to stop and read, then it leads me to something else, and then I have to remember what I wanted to look up initially. While I'm looking that up, I try not to forget the three or four things I've decided I really want to look up as a result of my wandering.
Of course, I generally only use the dictionary when I want to use a particular word in a story and want to be entirely sure of its meaning. Sometimes, there is a thought that requires just the right word, and there is some doubt as to whether I intend to use it correctly. In general, my vocabulary is pretty good, and I only turn to the dictionary for confirmation. For learning new words, I prefer reading good fiction and talking to people -- picking it up naturally. For the most part, I try not to use fancy words for their own sake. Simple English is the best way to go, unless you want to express something very specific.
AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Me too. Actually, I'm a terrible one for any kind
> of reference material, and always have been,
> whether it be a dictionary, encyclopedia or the
> internet. I'm too curious. On my way to finding
> the bit of information I need, I see too much
> interesting stuff on the way. I just have to stop
> and read, then it leads me to something else, and
> then I have to remember what I wanted to look up
> initially. While I'm looking that up, I try not to
> forget the three or four things I've decided I
> really want to look up as a result of my
> wandering.
>
> Of course, I generally only use the dictionary
> when I want to use a particular word in a story
> and want to be entirely sure of its meaning.
> Sometimes, there is a thought that requires just
> the right word, and there is some doubt as to
> whether I intend to use it correctly. In general,
> my vocabulary is pretty good, and I only turn to
> the dictionary for confirmation. For learning new
> words, I prefer reading good fiction and talking
> to people -- picking it up naturally. For the most
> part, I try not to use fancy words for their own
> sake. Simple English is the best way to go, unless
> you want to express something very specific.
That whole 'using fancy words just because' idea is something that really annoys me. I only really come across it via the movies, but it still really bugs me since it's such a pretentious attitude to have.
The only other time I've really come across it is in academia, and that's not so bad because it sometimes has a place [such as if somebody is explaining something and uses a big fancy word which sums the argument up more than explaining it in plain english.]
As for the whole wikipedia/too much information thing, that was my biggest problem when researching essays at uni: I'd get too interested in my topic and just read things that led off from my original topic too often and get bogged down in non-essential reading [and thus taking more time to do an essay, which could be a problem sometimes]
dean Wrote:
>
> As for the whole wikipedia/too much information
> thing, that was my biggest problem when
> researching essays at uni: I'd get too interested
> in my topic and just read things that led off from
> my original topic too often and get bogged down in
> non-essential reading
>
Back when I was teaching, I read an article that summarized a comparison of the quality of English papers from several years before the Internet and then (this was around 2002, or so). The quality had markedly decreased.
The information overload on the Internet has a real downside. Plus, a lot of "info" on the net is just plain wrong. Wikipedia is pretty good most of the time (especially as a starting point) because it is in a sense peer reviewed. But the signal to noise ratio of the 'net in general is pretty low.
ulthar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back when I was teaching, I read an article that
> summarized a comparison of the quality of English
> papers from several years before the Internet and
> then (this was around 2002, or so). The quality
> had markedly decreased.
>
> The information overload on the Internet has a
> real downside. Plus, a lot of "info" on the net
> is just plain wrong. Wikipedia is pretty good
> most of the time (especially as a starting point)
> because it is in a sense peer reviewed. But the
> signal to noise ratio of the 'net in general is
> pretty low.
>
Yeah, I can totally believe that: as we all know there's alot of crap on the internet, it's just a matter of searching through what is an academic source, and what is just a guy in an office writing down an idea, it's just a matter of finding the right place really. The problem is for people who don't realise that just because somebody on the net at some random page says 'Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet means so-and-so' doesn't make it fact.
But my problem was mainly with books that I was using for research and I'd read way too much of one book instead of just using the sections that I really needed, and exploring other options.
Sorry for digging in the past, but I just thought I'd mention this funny tidbit which reminded me of this post which included stuff about wikipedia, rather than starting my own post.
Senators have been found changing their wikipedia entries in order to, for example, delete bad things about themselves, such as the use of the term 'raghead'.
The Full Story Here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18101931-2,00.html)
I just find this funny, as it is a fairly pathetic effort to erase their quite dubious past, and also a funny way to do pranks, but that's neither here nor there.
It just annoys me how many politicians seem more willing to just erase the bad stuff and hope noone notices, rather than come out and admit they were wrong. I guess it's a sad comment on how silly politics can really get...
Very sad incident. But that's not the only danger Wikipedia is facing, heard some weeks ago that many politititians and other people who think the Wikipedia describes them in negative ways may start preparing lawsuits against the site. Since Wikipedia is an NGO most probably won't be able to pay the legal fees and may have to close down in the future.
There are legal foundations that could come to their rescue.
Also, how can the operators be liable? In the past year or so, they have taken a lot of 'hits' because of content, and their response has been to try to correct the process. For example, you no longer can edit content without user id and logging in, iirc. There is tracking of who made what content when, so I think (IANAL) this puts the onus on the person who made the content.
Besides, so long as what an article says is true (he said this, or he did that), what basis is there of a suit? If it's made-up or pointless name calling, then wikipedia should remove it on their own accord. It's my opinion that they should not host drivel.
dean Wrote:
> It just annoys me how many politicians seem more
> willing to just erase the bad stuff and hope noone
> notices, rather than come out and admit they were
> wrong. I guess it's a sad comment on how silly
> politics can really get...
>
There's no limit to how sad politicians can get... though I do have to say Jimmy Carter has gone a long way in restoring my respect in one of the few living role models from my parents & grandparents times.
GW Bush will always be remembered as the living embodiment of political ineptitude, falsity, and corruption... which is a shame because Nixon's ghost must be sad to give that title up...
Just Plain Horse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's no limit to how sad politicians can get...
> though I do have to say Jimmy Carter has gone a
> long way in restoring my respect in one of the few
> living role models from my parents &
> grandparents times.
>
> GW Bush will always be remembered as the living
> embodiment of political ineptitude, falsity, and
> corruption... which is a shame because Nixon's
> ghost must be sad to give that title up...
Please don't troll this board. These are your opinions. Maybe YOU will remember Bush this way or hold specific ex-Presidents in a given light; maybe others won't. It is just begging for an arguement to post stuff like this on this board.
This is just MY opinion, but I think there are better places to rant about the specifics of politics. Dean's comment was general - aimed at no party or person specifically. On those general grounds, I think we can all agree. ALL politicians have certain characteristics that we ALL don't like.
If you want to engage in honest debate about the merits of specific politicians, there are places for that. If you just want to rant, there are places for that as well. BadMovies.org does not have to be one of them.
ulthar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Besides, so long as what an article says is true
> (he said this, or he did that), what basis is
> there of a suit? If it's made-up or pointless
> name calling, then wikipedia should remove it on
> their own accord. It's my opinion that they
> should not host drivel.
It's not as simple as that. It doesn't matter if they are right or not, not even if they can win the lawsuits, if they get enough of their cases to court Wikipedia won't be able to pay for the legal assistance. That's worth a lot of money, and I doubt Wikipedia can afford a sustained legal battle.
Well, as the first part of my post said, there are foundations out there that may provide legal assistance. It's what they do - help groups like wikipedia fight what amounts to frivolous cases.
You only have to fight and win a small number of frivolous cases to stop the flood of suits for several reasons. First, the suers will see that you will fight them, and it will cost THEM money *if* they lose. Since those folks are often cowards, they don't want to risk the loss. The suit is premised on the gamble that wikipedia will cave in and settle.
Second, once you win a case or two, there is precedent. That makes for some case authority that the plaintiff's in future cases have to overcome; they have to show that their case is substantively different than the precedent case(s) and also that those differences will likely lead to a different outcome.
Walmart has learned this lesson. They used to settle cases to avoid the on-going cost of legal battles. And everyone and their brother was suing Walmart for whatever they could fathom. A few years ago, Walmart started fighting even the most ridiculous stuff. Sure, it cost them money for the first few, but as word spread that Walmart does not settle easily, the number of cases have dropped and the their legal expenses have dropped as well.
No. I think it makes sense for the Wikipedia guys to try to find some representation and go full tilt after the first to file suit. Tie it up in court for five years if need be. Bleed the other side dry. There are attorneys that would do this for the publicity alone.
It's what I would do. I sure would not role over and die without a fight.