3 Matching Annotations
- Feb 2019
-
static1.squarespace.com static1.squarespace.com
-
it was necessary to socif:Wc.i,ss ety, and to the state of human nature in general,1MM--4fct.., that the language of the animal passions of man(J•� at least, should be fixed, self-evident, and univercl,,yli'.A.� sally intelligible; and it has accordingly been im-� pressed, by the unerring hand of nature, on the human frame.
Sheridan claims that such "animal passions" are a universal thing (says emotions are "the same in all nations" in the next column), but this strikes me more as a cultural technique. (What also of those who don't experience emotions in the same way? Sociopaths or otherwise?)
-
-
static1.squarespace.com static1.squarespace.com
-
no material difference
Or nothing but material difference (paper) between them ;)
Like kmurphy1, I was thinking Ong would likely disagree on this matter, but Astell does make room for their differences as "talents which do not always meet." For all the functional differences (oral vs pen and paper, intangible vs tangible), does Astell see them both as means of communication and therefore only different in those functions?
-
-
static1.squarespace.com static1.squarespace.com
-
different countries and re-mote ages, wherein the speakers and writers had very different notions, tempers, customs, orna-ments, and figures of speech, &c., every one of which influenced the signification of their words
Brings to mind Rickert's rhetorics and Siegert's cultural techniques
-