I was checking my activity on Quillbot. For those who do not know about it, Quillbot is an AI assistant for correcting English grammar. If you are a premium member, it also helps you to put the paragraphs in “context” and improve the level of fluency. I hardly use this tool because, paradoxically, the AI gives a different result from what I had in mind.
When the conversation is about books, The Shoutbox pickwickian adventures, and other lighter conversations the result is good:
However, when I try to be more serious and discuss philosophy (even in the most recent “philosophy chat”), I see that clarity goes down. I only correct my grammar and misspellings; I don’t ask the tool to change the phrases or whatever:
I began to question whether the recipients (basically, you lads ) fully understood my messages or if they were unclear. If this is the case, I think the philosophical chat or discussion would not flourish because communication inside philosophy is essential!
So, what can I do?
Perhaps practising is the best tool to manage this, but you may have other tips and tricks.
Thanks Iavi for your post on how to improve clarity. I will give the subject some thought. I have had a look at a couple of your posts. The posts are not particularly difficult to follow.
And here I am still trying to escape the blandness of my writing.
There is only up to a point where the mechanics of our writing can be improved using drills. After that, our writing will plateau. Our next step is to not continue the unproductive drills. But to engage with our thoughts and the depth of our understanding of the philosophical ideas. Here is where insights will make our mediocre mechanics shine.
Understanding philosophical ideas is key to improve the writing. When we win knowledge, our clarity and confidence improve.
I already do that.
However, it does not always help. As you observed:
That is the condition other attempts at translation endure.
It is better to think and write in English directly.
I learned this lesson in the short story activity. Back in the day, I used to write my short story in Spanish and then translate it into English. The result was not what I expected. Then, I tried doing my best writing directly in English. The result was satisfactory, and I got better feedback from the readers.
You would have to test this against a control. It could be that clarity is just more difficult to achieve in philosophical writing. It could also be that the we trade clarity for sophistication, such that the deciding factor is the sophistication of the reader. It could also be that quillbot is unreliable. I don’t know, but some of my work has been both designated unclear and clear depending on the reader.
I suppose the difference is that I am, being a native speaker, in a better position to judge the quality of my writing than you, seeing as you consider your grammar skills to be lacking somehow.
This is a roundablut way of saying that what you probaly need to be able to discern the quality of your philosophical writing is feedback from sophiticated readers knowledgable on the topic you write about, rather than an AI assistant. And you have such readers in abundance here.
You could, for example, use this thread to try out some attempts to explain stuff and ask us what our interpretation is to test clarity. You could, in the background, compare this to what quillbot says. That way you get your control. If quillbot proves consonant with the reactions here, you would be more justified in using it.
I feel confident sharing my musings here. Also, I’m not new; you all already know me—there is a broad grade of confidence between us. Furthermore, when I joined TPF more than five years ago, the guidelines clearly stated that the site was in English, and I accepted them with the fallout.
Frankly, there is a distance between being clear and having philosophical knowledge. There are persons who are skilled in philosophy, but their written thoughts are not very understood to the public in general. Perhaps because they are not clear or the public didn’t reach their level. It is obvious that I’m not a scholar in philosophy, but I show interest. However, sometimes this is not enough. I can do my best to share my enthusiasm, but if the message is not very clear, it will begin to lose worth to the receiver.
I think it is a wonderful idea to attempt to test my clarity in this thread. Only when you are not busy, you could read the following brief text and tell me what you think:
Time is a construct.
While now I’m ready for bed, it’s nearly dawning in Australia.
I go in a hurry to Australia because there is the possibility of sleeping a bit, and then when I wake up ten minutes later, I return (also in a hurry) to my bed so I can say that there are two versions of myself who slept in two different time zones.
But what if I was the same person during the whole experiment and nothing has changed because time is a construct based on human scheduling?
That is what came to mind, a few nights ago, before I fell asleep.
Most of the discussions on TPF are informal. This way of doing philosophy is characterized by nuance-discrimination and the Jesus here is clarity. It’s accepted by professional philosophers as it feels natural. You can do informal philosophy even after a few draughts of rum or a whatever’s your poison, with the homeless man under the bridge or with your coffee machine.
I’ve given up trying to post on this forum without using a translator. To be honest, I’m not even entirely sure I have a great command of my own native language, so that’s what I’m focusing on first.
On the other hand—even though I consider myself a “techno-pessimist”—I do hope that in a few years, knowing foreign languages won’t be necessary at all. We’ll have devices that can translate in real time. As for learning a language for the sake of its beauty or to read original works—that’s not for me; it doesn’t come easily, and the effort required is just too high. Besides, in my personal view, English is primarily a precise tool for exchanging ideas. I don’t find it particularly beautiful in terms of sound—unlike, say, French—nor does it feature the kind of intricate expression found in Turkic languages, where meaning is built through complex systems of suffixes and auxiliary verbs (a European would really have to struggle to master those). Please forgive my bluntness.
And anyway, if the legend is to be believed, God didn’t give us different languages for no reason—otherwise, we might just finish building that Tower of Babel! =)
Thanks for sharing your ideas and personal experience, Astorre.
You are very proficient in philosophy. I remember reading posts from you and exchanges we had months ago. I understood everything you said, and your writing was very clear.
Never underestimate the power of learning a new language! It is beautiful. If I am not mistaken, your native language uses the Cyrillic alphabet. I wish I could understand and use such a beautiful set of letters.
However, and perhaps technology would help people like me, I’m dyslexic, and dyslexia is a bloody nuisance when it comes to learning foreign languages! I guess those tools will help us; they already do (in part).
How did I learn English then? Like many people have done it: practising since we were children. It is the predominant language of the modern world. If I didn’t know English, I would surely have missed out a lot of interesting things.
) fully understood my messages or if they were unclear. If this is the case, I think the philosophical chat or discussion would not flourish because communication inside philosophy is essential!
