Carrol
123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>
> No, it wasn't that simple. The ideal of purity for normal language was derived from the worship of "stable" (dead) classical languages. And there were those who argued that such purity had the "truth" of a stopped clock.
>
> If you're interested in the subject, read Cassirer "The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy" or try my diss, which is microfiched by U of Minnesota(?)
>
> Artists most definitely did not buy the division between the "truth" of science and of art.
>
> Joanna
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Charles Brown" <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Joanna:
> > why it was that in the seventeenth century, people started talking
> > about there being one truth for science and another for art, a
> > subsidiary assertion being that normal language was degraded, but that
> > the language of science (mathematics) was pure....and that therefore,
> > science was by definition "true."
> >
> > ^^^^^
> > CB: I'm guessing it was the scientist-mathematicians and artists who
> > started saying that math and art language was "pure" and "true" and
> > normal language degraded ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc.
> > www.surfcontrol.com
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk