I make a strict point of never blogging anything in the nature of a student-teacher or colleague-colleague interaction, but when a civilian knocks on my office door, comes in and says something funny, it’s fair game boyo.
So this kid comes in the door. (And he’s not a student at my institution but he’s home for the summer.) And he wants to ask me about Wittgenstein and philosophy of language and ‘reclaiming Kant’. And so I ask him a bit about what he means by that (sounds reasonable.) And, well, there is a bit of confusion. And it transpires that the reason nothing he is saying about the Sage of Königsberg is making much sense to me is that actually he’s talking about some project to do with Eve Ensler and The Vagina Monologues, etc. I ended up telling him I didn’t think Wittgenstein was quite what he was looking for. Still, these sorts of linguistic questions are quite interesting. Anyhoo. There was a moment there.
[edited to shield delicate sensibilities, ward off search engines, and to make the post funnier, actually]
{ 24 comments }
Ooops…
I have to say as a non-Native speaker of either English or German, I have had my share of challenges not being misunderstood when trying to pronounce Kant while speaking English. It’s come up in the context of discussing Crooked Timber as well, not surprisingly perhaps.
Clarification: did he want to “reclaim c**t” or did he want to “reclaim ‘c**t’”? (Just so, you know, we can all understand where he was coming from.)
reclaim ‘c**t’.
To paraphrase a character from the very nice film “Peter’s Friends”, I don’t think Wittgenstein was really in the vagina buisness.
So Wittgenstein doesn’t know dick about the subject?
The reverse occurred when I phoned my mother in the spring of my freshman year to tell her I’d be staying at college for the summer to study Kant.
Unfortunately, it was a largely wasted summer. The prof I was working with explained that Kant defended objectivity in morals without having to posit a world of moral facts: he was, I was told, a de-ontologist, that is, someone who removes ontology from morality by grounding moral truths in human reason.—No, I’m not kidding.
Well, there was the bit about everyone having a “box,” and we don’t know what kind of “beetles” are getting stuck into everyone else’s box. Vulgar euphemism or subtle argument re philosophy of language? Perhaps we will never know.
By the way, in case we had any illusions about CT not being blocked by certain filtering programs, we can now rest assured we’ve been blacklisted for good.:-}
Inverse Morgenbesser, this (pace #6). Abstruse pun on reclamation also noted.
Wittgenstein was all over the question of whether it was possible to have a privates language.
Sorry I couldn’t help myself.
Peter’s Friends is shite. A wank-in, luvvie fest.
You should’ve told him he needs to go study a broad.
Tom Cruise’s speech in Magnolia is what sprang to mind by way of a possible response . . .
“I gotcher crooked timber of humanity right here!”
Hell, I once had an uncomfortable few moments when a South African was telling me, through the haze of my hangover, that she’d been to Kent for the weekend.
Of all the people who might have claimed the title of “first to use the c-word on the front page of Crooked Timber”, I don’t think many would have picked John.
Was your visitor named Chris Muir, by any chance?
Actually, one of the reasons I used it – at first – was I thought: what are the odds that dsquared hasn’t already called someone a ‘silly c-word’ on the front page? only I’m forgetting for the moment’. The odds seemed about even, so I went with it.
“Unfortunately, it was a largely wasted summer. The prof I was working with explained that Kant defended objectivity in morals without having to posit a world of moral facts: he was, I was told, a de-ontologist, that is, someone who removes ontology from morality by grounding moral truths in human reason.—No, I’m not kidding.”
Was it a wasted summer simply because the prof didn’t know the etymology of “deontological”? (Philosophical prowess is, of course, contingent upon verbal pedantry.) I think it’s a lovely and creative explanation of a silly piece of jargon. And a very effective explanation in spirit, if not the letter.
Similarly uncomfortable moments on my first visit to Boston. I hadn’t quite adjusted to the local accent when my host (a native) asked the waitress for a “fork”.
i read both the original uncleaned up version and the cleaned up version: have to disagree with you that the cleaned up version is funnier than the original
The c-word seems to be stuck in the comments for good.
Maybe I should edit the comments. There actually does seem to be a pick-up in the level of obscene spam I’ve been deleted in the last few days. OK, I’ll do that. Nothing personal, but maybe it will help cut down on spam. Sheesh.
This puts me in mind I had over 20 years ago while driving with my younger sister through Harvard square.
Me: I’ll meet you after I go to this seminar I’m auditing on Kant.
Her: On what?
Me: Kant, Immanuel Kant.
Her: What, as opposed to automatic?
Comments on this entry are closed.