ThePortForum.com

Please allow me to commend

The of author of this [url=http://www.theportforum.com/groupcp.php?g=18]group description[/url] wrote:The

That’s it. Just the definite article. No more. Cool.

jdaw1 wrote:Please allow me to commend

The of author of this [url=http://www.theportforum.com/groupcp.php?g=18]group description[/url] wrote:The

That’s it. Just the definite article. No more. Cool.

This is bordering on the philisophical.

I recommend that this should only be discussed further at the end of an evening of port tasting or port drinking. Only then will we have reached the required state of awareness of existentialism that would be required to further the thinking posited by this individual use of the definite article.

I feel that we, as a collective, may be on the verge of producing works as meaningful as those of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. We only need to develop our thoughts sufficiently to have the next word in our treaty, the word that follows on from the sole use of the definitive article, and we should then be able overcome any hurdles or barriers that are currently in our way.

Be brave, my fellow souls. We are masters of our own destiny and can set our own boundaries. Do not be restricted to the conventional use of such social norms as we see elsewhere. Do not be afraid to use the definite article on its own. Do not shy away from liberal and free use of apostrophes. Only through challenging those "normal" social boundaries is true philisophical enlightenment achieved. But above all, liberal use of the sweet, red lubricant of thought is to be encouraged.

And if you're wondering what all this means, try reading one of Kierkegaard's essays after having drunk half a bottle of port. But to put you out of your misery, I will paraphrase all of what I have written above as:

Eat, drink and be merry. For tomorrow we misuse our apostrophes!

Alex

Just for the help of the hard of understanding, what is the difference in meaning between

• those "normal" social boundaries

and

• those normal social boundaries

? Why is the “normal† separated from the main text?

jdaw1 wrote:Just for the help of the hard of understanding, what is the difference in meaning between

• those "normal" social boundaries

and

• those normal social boundaries

? Why is the “normal† separated from the main text?

Through the use of the quotation marks (and here I accept that perhaps some might consider single quotation marks to be more appropriate than double quotation marks) I wanted to make it clear that when writing this modest diatribe that I consider social normality to be something of an irony - how can normality be considered to be normal when taken out of the context against which its normality is to be judged.

If I am encouraging people from a diverse background to challenge their social norms, those norms will already be different since social boundaries are a product of the individual and the groups with which the individual interacts. There will be a large number of normalities and therefore referring to a single set of normal social boundaries is already ironic as the reference itself demonstrates that no such single set of boundaries exist.

When writing the post, I decided that the easiest way to convey this concept to the reader would be to use a set of quotation marks to convey the inherent irony. Would you not agree?

Could someone remind me what this forum was about again please? Was I being misled when I was told that The PORT Forum stood for The Philosophy of Religion and Theology Forum?

Alex

Julian,

When you ask Alex to explain the use of "Normal", you get what you deserve,

Alex

Alex

I would point out that you triggered this discussion of the place of the individual in the gestalt of port drinkers by using only the definite article as the description for a group.

That and the fact that Julian has enough time on his hands to be able to find where the Group names are kept and the ability to read through them all.

Personally, I wouldn't have a clue where to look.

Alex

This has been an interesting diversion today, on a day where the work has come in thick and fast to the extent that my daughter has commented that I am being stalked given how frequently my BlackBerry is buzzing at me. Now, I must find another topic to write about as my tongue is hurting the inside of my cheek.

I'm not going to get this five minutes back, am I ???

No, sadly you won't. However, you can console yourself that your remaining life will be all the more richer for having spent the time reading through the thread.

Alex