Through Rob I found a website that will translate my blog into several ‘languages,” including Redneck, Jive, Elmer Fudd, and Moron. Here part of a normal post:
THE CENTRAL POSITION OF THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The Schoolmen of the thirteenth century paid special attention to thefunction of knowing and willing. They regarded these as the peculiarand privileged possession of the human race, situated as it is at theboundary where matter and spirit meet. For, the dignity of man resultsfrom a certain way of knowing which is peculiar to him, and which iscalled intelligence. This we must define more closely. In order tounderstand in what sense scholasticism can be described as anintellecutualist system of philosophy.
What is knowing? An object is known when it is present in a certainway in the knowing consciousness. When I see a stone lying in the road,the stone is present in me, but not indeed in the material way in whichit is present outside of me in the external world. For it is perfectlyclear that “the stone is not in me so far as its own peculiar existenceis concerned.” In the same way, when I grasp mentally the constituentnature of the molecule of water, and the law which governs itsdecomposition, the material composition of the molecule does not in anyway enter into or form a part of me; but there is produced in me a kindof reflection of a non-ego. The privilege of a being which knowsconsists precisely in this ability of being enriched by something whichbelongs to something else.
Knowing beings are differentiated from non-knowing beingsby this characteristic; non-knowing beings have only their own reality,but knowing beings are capable of possessing also the reality ofsomething else. For in the knowing being there is the presence of thething known produced by this thing.
In what does this presence or reflection of the object in meconsist? The schoolmen to not pretend to fathom the mystery ofknowledge; their explanation is a mere analysis of the facts revealedby introspection.
Knowing, they observe, is a particular kind of being, amodification, or a vital action of the knowing subject. “The thingknown is present in the knowing subject according to the mode of beingof the knowing subject”; it bears its mark. “All knowledge results froma similitude of the thing known in the knowing subject.” These twoquotations, which were common sayings, sum up well the view of thethirteenth century psychologists. In consequence, knowledge does notresult merely from the thing; but rather, the thing known and thesubject knowing cooperate in the production of the phenomenon. Thisintervention of the knowing subject shows us why scholasticism rejected“naive realism’, which disregards the action of the knowing subject,and considers the object known as projected in our minds like an imagein a lifeless and passive mirror. On the other hand, since there is anactivity of the thing known upon the knowing subject, ourrepresentations of reality will be to some extent faithful andcorresponds to that reality.
Here is the same as Redneck:
Th’ Skoomen of th’ thirteenth century paid special attenshun t’th’funckshun of knowin’ an’ willin’. They regarded these as th’ peekoolyaran’ privileged postesshun of th’ hoomin race, situated as it is at th’boun’ary whar matter an’ spirit meet. Fo’, th’ dignity of man resultsfum a sartin way of knowin’ which is peekoolyar t’him, an’ which iscalled intellyjunce. This hyar we muss define mo’e closely. In o’dert’unnerstan’ in whut sense scholasticism kin be dexcribed as anintellecutualist system of philosophy.Whut in tarnation is knowin’? An objeck is known when it is presentin a sartin way in th’ knowin’ cornsciousness. When ah see a stonelyin’ in th’ road, th’ stone is present in me, but not indeed in th’material way in which it is present outside of me in th’ externalwo’ld, cuss it all t’ tarnation. Fo’ it is puffickly clear thet “th’stone is not in me so far as its own peekoolyar exissence iscorncerned, cuss it all t’ tarnation.” In th’ same way, when ah graspmentally th’ constituent nature of th’ molecule of water, an’ th’ lawwhich govahns its decomposishun, th’ material composishun of th’molecule does not in enny way inter into o’ fo’m a part of me; but tharis prodooced in me a kind of refleckshun of a non-ego. Th’ privilege ofa bein’ which knows cornsists precisely in this hyar ability of bein’inriched by sumpin which belongs t’sumpin else.
Knowin’ bein’s is diffruntiated fum non-knowin’ bein’s bythis hyar chareeckeristic; non-knowin’ bein’s haf only their ownreality, but knowin’ bein’s is capable of postessin’ also th’ realityof sumpin else. Fo’ in th’ knowin’ bein’ thar is th’ presence of th’thin’ known prodooced by this hyar thin’.
In whut does this hyar presence o’ refleckshun of th’ objeck in mecornsist? Th’ skoomen t’not pretend t’fathom th’ mahstery of smarts;their explanashun is a mere analysis of th’ facks revealed byintryspeckshun.
Knowin’, they obsarve, is a particular kind of bein’, amodificashun, o’ a vital ackshun of th’ knowin’ subjeck. “Th’ thin’known is present in th’ knowin’ subjeck acco’din’ t’th’ mode of bein’of th’ knowin’ subjeck”; it bars its mark. Shet mah mouth! “All smartsresults fum a similitude of th’ thin’ known in th’ knowin’ subjeck.”These two quotashuns, which were common sayin’s, sum up fine th’ viewof th’ thirteenth century psychologists. In cornsequence, smarts doesnot result merely fum th’ thin’; but rather, th’ thin’ known an’ th’subjeck knowin’ cooperate in th’ produckshun of th’ phenomenon, as ennyfool kin plainly see. This hyar intervenshun of th’ knowin’ subjeckshows us whuffo’ scholasticism rejecked “naive realism’, whichdisregards th’ ackshun of th’ knowin’ subjeck, an’ cornsiders th’objeck known as projecked in our minds like an image in a lifeless an’passive mirro’. On t’other han’, on account o’ thar is an ackivity ofth’ thin’ known upon th’ knowin’ subjeck, our representashuns ofreality will be t’some extent faifful an’ co’responds t’thet reality.
Here’s Jive :
THE CENTRAL POSITION OF THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
De Farmmen uh de dirteend century paid special attenshun t’de funcshunuh knowin’ and willin’. Dey regarded dese as de peculiar and privilegedpossession uh de human race, situated as it be at da damn boundarywhere matta’ and spirit meet. Man! Fo’, de dignity uh man results fumsome certain way uh knowin’ which be peculiar t’him, and which becalled intelligence. Dis we gots’ta define mo’e closely. Slap mah fro!In o’da’ to dig it in whut sense scholasticism kin be described as anintellecutualist system uh philosophy. Slap mah fro!
Whut be knowin’? An object be knode when it be present in somecertain way in de knowin’ consciousness. When ah’ see some stone lyin’in de road, de stone be present in me, but not indeed in de materialway in which it be present outside uh me in de ‘esternal wo’ld. Fo’ itbe puh’fectly clear dat “de stone be not in me so’s far as its ownpeculiar ‘esistence be concerned.” In de same way, when ah’ graspmentally de constituent nature uh de molecule uh booze, and da damn lawwhich governs its decomposishun, de material composishun uh de moleculeduz not in any way enta’ into o’ fo’m some part uh me; but dere beproduced in me some kind’a reflecshun uh a non-ego. ‘S coo’, bro. Deprivilege uh a bein’ which knows consists precisely in dis ability uhbein’ enriched by sump’n which belongs t’sump’n else.
Knowin’ bein’s is differentiated fum non-knowin’ bein’s bydis characteristic; non-knowin’ bein’s gots only deir own reality, butknowin’ bein’s is capable uh possessin’ also de reality uh sump’n else.Fo’ in de knowin’ bein’ dere be de presence uh de doodad knode producedby dis doodad.
In whut duz dis presence o’ reflecshun uh de object in me consist?De farmmen t’not pretend t’fadom de mah’stery uh knowledge; deir’esplanashun be a mere analysis uh de facts revealed by introspecshun.
Knowin’, dey observe, be a particular kind’a bein’, somemodificashun, o’ some vital acshun uh de knowin’ subject. Man! “Dedoodad knode be present in de knowin’ subject acco’din’ t’de mode uhbein’ uh de knowin’ subject”; it bears its mark. Ya’ know? “Allknowledge results fum some similitude uh de doodad knode in de knowin’subject. Man!” Dese two quotashuns, which wuz common sayin’s, sum downwell de view uh de dirteend century psychologists. In consequence,knowledge duz not result merely fum de doodad; but rader, de doodadknode and da damn subject knowin’ coopuh’te in de producshun uh dephenomenon. ‘S coo’, bro. Dis intervenshun uh de knowin’ subject showsus why scholasticism rejected “naive realism’, which disregards deacshun uh de knowin’ subject, and considers de object knode asprojected in our minds likes an image in some lifeless and passivemirro’. On de oda’ hand, since dere be an activity uh de doodad knodedownon de knowin’ subject, our representashuns uh reality gots’ta bet’some ‘estent faidful and co’responds t’dat reality. Slap mah fro!
Here is Elmer Fudd speak:
DE CENTWAW POSITION OF DE DEOWY OF KNOWWEDGE
De Schoowmen of the thiwteenf centuwy paid speciaw attention to thefunction of knowing and wiwwing. Dey wegawded these as the pecuwiaw andpwiviweged possession of the human wace, situated as it is at theboundawy whewe mattew and spiwit meet. Fow, the dignity of man wesuwtsfwom a cewtain way of knowing which is pecuwiaw to him, and which iscawwed intewwigence. Dis we must define mowe cwosewy. In owdew toundewstand in what sense schowasticism can be descwibed as anintewwecutuawist system of phiwosophy.
What is knowing? An object is known when it is pwesent in a cewtainway in the knowing consciousness. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! When I see astone wying in the woad, the stone is pwesent in me, but not indeed inthe matewiaw way in which it is pwesent outside of me in the extewnawwowwd. Fow it is pewfectwy cweaw that “the stone is not in me so faw asits own pecuwiaw existence is concewned.” In the same way, when I gwaspmentawwy the constituent natuwe of the mowecuwe of watew, and the wawwhich govewns its decomposition, the matewiaw composition of themowecuwe does not in any way entew into ow fowm a pawt of me; but theweis pwoduced in me a kind of wefwection of a non-ego. De pwiviwege of abeing which knows consists pwecisewy in this abiwity of being enwichedby something which bewongs to something ewse.
Knowing beings awe diffewentiated fwom non-knowing beingsby this chawactewistic; non-knowing beings have onwy theiw own weawity,but knowing beings awe capabwe of possessing awso the weawity ofsomething ewse. Fow in the knowing being thewe is the pwesence of thething known pwoduced by this thing.
In what does this pwesence ow wefwection of the object in meconsist? De schoowmen to not pwetend to fathom the mystewy ofknowwedge; theiw expwanation is a mewe anawysis of the facts weveawedby intwospection, uh-hah-hah-hah.
Knowing, they obsewve, is a pawticuwaw kind of being, amodification, ow a vitaw action of the knowing subject. “De thing knownis pwesent in the knowing subject accowding to the mode of being of theknowing subject”; it beaws its mawk. “Aww knowwedge wesuwts fwom asimiwitude of the thing known in the knowing subject.” Dese twoqwotations, which wewe common sayings, sum up weww the view of thethiwteenf centuwy psychowogists. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! In conseqwence,knowwedge does not wesuwt mewewy fwom the thing; but wathew, the thingknown and the subject knowing coopewate in the pwoduction of thephenomenon, uh-hah-hah-hah. Dis intewvention of the knowing subjectshows us why schowasticism wejected “naive weawism’, which diswegawdsthe action of the knowing subject, and considews the object known aspwojected in ouw minds wike an image in a wifewess and passive miwwow.On the othew hand, since thewe is an activity of the thing known uponthe knowing subject, ouw wepwesentations of weawity wiww be to someextent faithfuw and cowwesponds to that weawity.
Here is Moron:
THE CENTRAL POSITION OF THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
De Schoolmen of the, duh uhh, thirteend century paid special attenshunt’ the, uh uh uh, funcshun of knowigg ‘n willigg. Dey regardid dese asde peculiar ‘n pribilegid possesshun of de human race, uh uh uh,situatid as it is at de bound whehe matteh ‘n spirit meet. F’, the,uhhh, dignity of man results from a cehtain way of knowigg which ispeculiar t’ him, ‘n which is callid smehts. Dis webuh must define moreclose. In ordeh t’ undehstand in what sense scholasticism can bedescribid as an intellecutualist syssem of philosophy.
What is knowigg, duh…uh…? An obbuhjeck is known when it ispresent in a cehtain way in de knowigg consciousness. Uhhh…. When Isee a stone lyigg in de road, uh uh uh uh, the, ERRRR, stone is presentin me, uh uh uh, but not indeid in de matehial way in which it ispresent outside of me in the, uh, extehnal world. F’ it is pehfeckclear dat “the, ERRRR, stone is not in me so far as its own peculiarexistess is cosserned.” In the, ERRRR, same way, when I grasp minalthe, errr, constituent nature of de molecule of wateh, ‘n de law whichgobehns its dec’posishun, de matehial c’posishun of de molecule doesnot in any way enteh into or f’m a part of me; but dehe is producid inme a kind of refleckion of a non-ego. De pribilege of a beigg whichknows consists precise in dis abiltiby of beigg enrichid by somediggwhich belongs t’ somedigg else.
Knowigg beiggs are diffehentiatid from non-knowigg beiggsby dis charackehistic; non-knowigg beiggs habe on deir own reality, butknowigg beiggs are capaggle of possessigg also de reality of somediggelse. Um uh. F’ in de knowigg beigg dehe is de presess of the, duh uhh,thigg known producid by dis digg.
In what does dis presess or refleckion of de obbuhjeck in meconsist, duh…uh…? De schoolmen t’ not pretend t’ fadom de myssehyof smehts; deir explanashun is a mehe analysis of the, uh uh uh, facksrebealid by interspeckshun.
Knowigg, dey obsehbe, uh uh uh, is a particular kind of beigg, amodificashun, or a bital ackion of de knowigg subbuhjeck. “De diggknown is present in de knowigg subbuhjeck accordigg t’ de mode of beiggof de knowigg subbuhjeck”; it bears its mark. “All smehts results froma similitude of the, duh uhh, thigg known in de knowigg subbuhjeck.”Dese two kotashuns, duuhhhh, which webuhre common sayiggs, duuhhhh, sumup webuhll de biew of the, duh uhh, thirteend century psychologists. Inconsekess, smehts does not result mehe from the, duh uhh, thigg; butradeh, the, duh uhh, thigg known ‘n the, ERRRR, subbuhjeck knowiggcoopehate in de produckion of de phenomenon. GEE danks. Disinnerbenshun of de knowigg subbuhjeck shows us errrr, why scholasticismrebuhjeckid “naibe realism’, which disregards de ackion of de knowiggsubbuhjeck, ‘n considehs de obbuhjeck known as probuhjeckid in ourminds like an image in a lifeless ‘n passibe mirror. On de odeh hand,uh uh uh uh, siss dehe is an ackibity of the, duh uhh, thigg known uponde knowigg subbuhjeck, our representashuns of reality will be t’ someextent faidful ‘n correponds t’ dat reality.
