|
<blockquote>
Multum [[vita]]e meae habui quaestiones harum similes disserans, et modis solis, quos cognovi, utens; hos hic condemnatos ut "scientia," "rationalitas," "logica," et sic porro. Symbolas igitur lego, eas sperans me adiuvaturas, ut hos fines "superem," aut fortasse cursum omnino diversum admoneant. Falsus autem sum. Fortasse solum propter fines meos sic evenit. Saepius, "oculi mei vitreantur" cum rhetoricam polysyllabicampolysyllabam lego de [[Poststructuralismus|poststructuralismo]] et [[postmodernismus|postmodernismo]]; id, quod intellego, plerumque [[truismus]] errorve est, haec autem res solum fractio est omnium verborum. Verum est multa alia esse, quae non intellego: commentationes de rebus nuper factis in [[mathematica]] et [[physica]], exempli gratia. Adest autem discrimen. Hac in re, scio, quo modo ea intellegem, idque feci, cum mea interesset; et scio quoque earum disciplinarum homines mihi ea explanare posse, ita ut (partialem) scientiam, cui studeam, accipere possim. Contra, nemo mihi explanare posse videtur, quid posthoc postqueillud sit, nisi truismus aut error aut nugae, ita ut quo modo progrediar, nesciam.<ref group="conv.">I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as "science", "rationality," "logic," and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed.</ref><ref name="ChomskyOtero2003">{{cite book|last1=Chomsky|first1=Noam|last2=Otero|first2=Carlos Peregrín|title=Chomsky on democracy & education|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Y5Ouy4XoXPsC|accessdate=16 August 2011|year=[[2003]]|publisher=RoutledgeFalmer|isbn=978-0-415-92632-4|page=93}}</ref>
</blockquote>
|
