[Grammar] The S-V-O Structure in a sentence

[cuneiform]

What criticism may be exerted in relation to the word order and punctuation in the following sentence:

On the continent, philosophy - as that by Hegel who treated many categories, among them also "Quantity" - belongs to positive sciences.

Maybe, the verb "belongs" should be placed right after "philosophy"?
Any ideas are welcome!

 

[emsr2d2]

Do you mean it should be moved? If so, no. It's fine where it is but the verb "belongs" does refer to "philosophy". You could put the whole section between the dashes into brackets instead if that makes it easier to read.

I have to admit, I'm a little confused by the part that starts "as that by Hegel" but I'm not terribly familiar with either science or philosophy!

 

[cuneiform]

Greatly indebted to you for your reply! Don't be confused, it's quite normal out of the continent, the way philosophy as a subject is studied, just like a game and not for any practical use, merely in a sense like the philosophy of the burying / cooking.

 

[emsr2d2]

Greatly indebted to you for your reply! Don't be confused, it's quite normal out of the continent, the way philosophy as a subject is studied, just like a game and not for any practical use, merely in a sense like the philosophy of the burring / cooking.

Burring?

 

[cuneiform]

Well, seemingly I have erroneously doubled the r for the Participle I form from the verb to bury;-) - I have introduced some corrections. Nevertheless, even in this case don't read books on philosophy by Russel, Popper, Witgenstein, modern out-of-the-continent philosophers, but Whitehead is generally well accepted on the continent. :shock:

 

[emsr2d2]

Well, seemingly I have erroneously doubled r for the Participle I form from the verb to bury;-) - I have introduced some corrections. Nevertheless, even in this case don't read books on philosophy by Russel, Popper, Witgenstein, modern out-of-the-continent philosophers, but Whitehead is generally well accepted on the continent. :shock:

You doubled the "r" and omitted the "y"! It should read "burying". Is there really a philosophy attached to burial?!

 

[cuneiform]

Damn. I only too rarely try to write something in English if I'm going to translate smth. for my colleagues. For myself I am writing in German, generally speaking, a language of contemporary philosophy, like Greek. English is my 7th language. Most modern philosophers have made a play on words if not a pun out of traditional philosophy, which always was some kind of love for wisdom.Now, it became in fact merely a technique of specialization at cooking, burying, etc. Then, they are speaking about the philosophy of cooking, burying, etc. Alas. Continental philosophers if not sick the same way are always getting astonished at international congresses while seeing all kinds of "linguistic games" played by modern philosophers that consider the traditional problematics decayed.

 

[emsr2d2]

Damn. I only too rarely try to write something in English if I'm going to translate smth. for my colleagues. For myself I am writing in German, generally speaking, a language of contemporary philosophy, like Greek. English is my 7th language. Most modern philosophers have made a play on words if not a pun out of traditional philosophy, which always was some kind of love for wisdom.Now, it became in fact merely a technique of specialization at cooking, burying, etc. Then, they are speaking about the philosophy of cooking, burying, etc. Alas. Continental philosophers if not sick the same way are always getting astonished at international congresses while seeing all kinds of "linguistic games" played by modern philosophers that consider the traditional problematics decayed.

I am nodding sagely in my living room and pretending I understood every single word you wrote. ;-)

 

[5jj]

I am nodding sagely with ems. Before I nod off, let's get back to your original sentence, which is actually moderately meaningless.

I understand it to mean:

In continental Europe, philosophy, such as that of Hegel (who dealt with many topics [including 'quantity']) can be considered one of the positive sciences.

That's better, but I have little idea of what 'positive sciences' might be.

 

[cuneiform]

In continental Europe, philosophy, such as that of Hegel (who dealt with many topics [including 'quantity']) can be considered one of the positive sciences.

That's better.

It's a good idea.

 

[cuneiform]

I am nodding sagely in my living room and pretending I understood every single word you wrote. ;-)

So, you do mean my terrific English is so bad?! Alas. To speak English "conventionally", one would have to be born with English in one's blood. Apparently, I am not.

 

[charliedeut]

So, you do mean my terrific English so bad?!

No, I believe ems is saying she finds the topic complicated/dense/hard to swallow.

charliedeut

 

[Tdol]

There are plenty of philosophers who have made a negative contribution, so I can't see any call for it to be held as an example of a positive science, especially when it isn't even a science.

 

[emsr2d2]

So, you do mean my terrific English so bad?! Alas. To speak English "conventionally", one would have to be born with English in one's blood. Apparently, I am not.

It wasn't a comment on your English at all - I would never put such a thing in those terms. As Charliedeut said, it was the subject matter which foxed me but, in my terribly British way, I thought it more polite to smile, nod sagely and pretend I understood what you'd written about the topic. I can assure that I wouldn't have understood it if it had been written by the most erudite, eloquent native speaker either. ;-)

 

[cuneiform]

There are plenty of philosophers who have made a negative contribution, so I can't see any call for it to be held as an example of a positive science, especially when it isn't even a science.

It isn't even a science outside of the Continent only; if Aristotle and lots of others after him are of no authority, then no discussion is really worth making. Positive is always meant not as a juxtaposition to 'negative' sciences, but merely as a substitution for natural sciences. I consider, as many others, for instance, Whitehead a good contemporary though not modern philosopher. On the other hand, Wittgenstein, Russel, Popper, and all modern "ordinary language philosophers" do break all traditions in philosophy, which are some 2,500 years old and still remain actual in the continental philosophy. I just want you to distinguish between the notion of philosophy and all that what you are reading in and about philosophy in English. I know professional English philosophers that read mainly texts in Greek and German. Because there is no such a notion like the German notion 'Vorstellung' in English. It is not 'Imagination' following any dictionary. The German 'Vorstellung' makes Phenomenology as a doctrine possible. The same way, there is no 'being' in English like Sein, Dasein, Seyn, Sosein, etc. I will just inform you. You may not believe, you may not read anything in philosophy at all. But if someone wants to, I will advise him to change the language and read some other authors than those mentioned above.

 

[5jj]

It isn't even a science outside of the Continent only; if Aristotle and lots of others after him are of no authority, then no discussion is really worth making.

I am sorry, but I really don't know what message you are trying to convey,

Positive is always meant not as a juxtaposition to 'negative' sciences, but merely as a substitution for natural sciences.

I have not encountered 'positive science' used in this way before. Have you any examples of it so used?

 

[cuneiform]

It wasn't a comment on your English at all - I would never put such a thing in those terms. As Charliedeut said, it was the subject matter which foxed me but, in my terribly British way, I thought it more polite to smile, nod sagely and pretend I understood what you'd written about the topic. I can assure that I wouldn't have understood it if it had been written by the most erudite, eloquent native speaker either. ;-)

I do appreciate your explanations indeed, but without them I would think right the way I wrote about, meaning the British humor (who knows how far it might go) "in use".

 

[cuneiform]

I am sorry, but I really don't know what message you are trying to convey,I have not encountered 'positive science' used in this way before. Have you any examples of it so used?

My message is that philosophy may be either a science or an art or the both at once. Aristotle, Kant and Hegel held philosophy for science. Positivists did not. Read about positivism in wiki, please. Positiv is a stage of development of knowledge by O. Comte regarding the laws of development.

"It can be thus argued that "natural science and social science [research articles] can therefore be regarded with a good deal of confidence as members of the same genre".
--- Holmes, Richard. 1997. "Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines" English For Specific Purposes, vol. 16, num. 4:321-337.

The last citation implies that natural sciences = positive sciences and social sciences (jurisprudence, sociology, philosophy, epistemology, etc.) have the same "scientific" genre. Thus, philosophy "would" be a science. In my opinion, it's only one direction of philosophy called mainly 'positivism'. On the other hand, there are also hermeneutics and existentialism, both having nothing to do with positive or natural sciences, both being merely one of the arts.

 

[5jj]

My message is that philosophy may be either a science or an art or the both at once. Aristotle, Kant and Hegel held philosophy for science. Positivists did not. Read about positivism in wiki, please. Positiv is a stage of development of knowledge by O. Comte regarding the laws of development.

"It can be thus argued that "natural science and social science [research articles] can therefore be regarded with a good deal of confidence as members of the same genre".
--- Holmes, Richard. 1997. "Genre analysis, and the social sciences: An investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines" English For Specific Purposes, vol. 16, num. 4:321-337.

The last citation implies that natural sciences = positive sciences and social sciences (jurisprudence, sociology, philosophy, epistemology, etc.) have the same "scientific" genre. Thus, philosophy "would" be a science. In my opinion, it's only one direction of philosophy called mainly 'positivism'. On the other hand, there are also hermeneutics and existentialism, both having nothing to do with positive or natural sciences, both being merely one of the arts.

I think that it's probably a question of exegisis.

 

[charliedeut]

I think that it's probably a question of exegesis.

IMO, you've been misled by its pronunciation. The result is still mthe same though: typo! ;-) (welcome back :roll

charliedeut