Philosophical question: Do you consider talking a lost art?
Talking or speech is more powerful then people give credit for. You can persuade, discourage, encourage, hurt, and much more by what you say. But how you say it determines its effectiveness which why I considered talking a art. But people don’t know or at least utilize that. So is it lost?
- Anonymous11 months agoFavorite Answer
Saying that something is "lost" generally implies you re speaking of something that belongs to the past. In that sense, talking is not "lost", it cannot be, as we use it daily.
However, it certainly is not considered and honed as an "art". It has mostly been reduced to its most basic communication functions. For everyday uses, give me this, at what hour is the dentist, you can make do with a vocabulary of 100-150 words, and simple subject-predicate sentences, and most of the people just stick to that. Of course language can do a lot more and go further and deeper...
The cause of this situation, in my view, is that we ve moved from a society that was more verbal to this one that is more visual. Visual is quicker and more immediate, but it is also more superficial. I m more verbal than visual myself (¿perhaps because I caught the final breath of the previous culture?), so I d prefer going back to verbal, but I also think that things happen for a reason and, if maybe people s preference has moved to pictures and icons, it s because in the previous period words were taken too seriously, and a lot of wrong things were done in their name...
- atomic fireballLv 611 months ago
I don’t think any art form is necessarily “lost”. It’s always there. It’s just that there aren’t always ‘artists’ who have the competency to utilize those forms. In the hands of somebody with no musical talent a piano can sound like crap. In the hands of somebody who can unlock its potentialities, it can create transcendent harmonies, rhythms and melodies which ‘communicate’ very directly and effectively with the listener
- tizzoseddyLv 611 months ago
Things are lost because we don't know where to find them, but generally they're somewhere, and might be found.
- Anonymous11 months ago
I would say meaningless palabler is alive & well.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- PLv 711 months ago
No, it's not dead just sleeping. These days It's considered art when talking incessantly without actually saying anything, but this is more of an infectious disease (like dropping the "g" from the end of words). It becomes painful to listen to and very frustrating.
The skill of the wordsmith is in conveying meaning in the minimum number of words in an elegant and engaging way rather than losing the message in a overwhelming verbosity of tripe.
- AthenaLv 711 months ago
Not as much as listening.
- Anonymous11 months ago
a) No, it isn't a lost art. Most people don't have it and historically most people never were very eloquent. A few are, so obviously it hasn't been lost.
b) It should be "more powerful THAN", not "more powerful then".
c) It should be "which is why I considered talking AN art", not "which is why I considered talking a art".
d) So much for your own level of artfulness and eloquence with language. Try harder.
e) To elevate your knowledge of the power of language you would do well to read Searle, Merleau-Ponty, Wittgenstein, Berkeley and even the Sanskrit Philosophy of Language.
- peter mLv 611 months ago
Do you consider talking a lost art ?
You would think so like Socrates.
But not like Plato & apparently the other philosophical Peripatetics,
"Culture" and its dubius "cultural knowledge" & its talkative faiths
all consider talking to be as an art.. especially but not exclusively
when deciding upon important matters in-the-present.
This may be a throwback to caveman times, more likely to the
time of the emergence of the improbable theory of Darwin.
Faith in such a theory literally means opposing or fleeing & we
surely know-by-now that by choosing "opposition or opposing"
we also culturally ALSO Choose to come-closer-to-listening first :
And as we know listening must involve A TALKER of a Signal
Hence the more immediate & "present" cultural group consideration
of talking-as-a-lost Art.
And here writing rather than talking I have tried to show just why
Socrates was obliged to put forward the radical (talking) theory &
practise that he did...
Not least because he believed MUCH MORE like a modern (non
Darwinian) environmental speaker would...
Socrates believed like present philosophers that although TALKING
IS INFERIOR TO Writing nonetheless it could & should reflect the
talker's ability to have done some CRITICAL RATIONAL environment
For example all Socrates needed to know about say Plato & the later
Peripatetics or Greek teachers was that they collectively didn't hardly
know or understandabout RACISM or SEXISM. As if Plato he neither
was taught about those things by a talking teacher or by so reading.
However Plato understood his own motivation & philosophy and it wasn't
that rounded or reasonable philosophy that had been shown or taught
to Socrates & PREVIOUS Greeks.
This is why we can believe in Philosophy that "talking (is) a lost art" -
one where listening & moreover where trying-to-understand the other's
ARGUMENTATIVE reasoning is of paramount important.
Paramount importance in learning-from-one's-own-mistakes on reflection.Source(s): Environmental Philosophy orientation.
- 11 months ago
- j153eLv 711 months ago
For some of us, more than others (looking up from screen ;-)
Would note these resources:
"The Science of the Spoken Word;"
"Naam or Word," Sant Kirpal Singh (is a compendium of wisdom about the spoken Word); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sant_Kirpal_Singh_Ji...