My dear sir,
To say a statement is meaningless is not rudeness. It is a matter of fact declaration in philosophical reasoning and disputations. If I say to you 'Men are the greater gender.' You are free to tell me it is a meaningless statement and I would
not feel touchy or offended. I would expatiate what I meant and you would educate
me with the other facts and angles I missed that made my statement a fallacy. Sentences, philosophically are honed to mean what they state, and state precisely what they mean. When you appear to ramble philosophers will point that out to you to let
you know what you stated does not either convey what you intended in the context you present them or in any context at all.
The same goes for ' nonsensical.' If supported with textual proof, which I did. Plain terms: it makes no sense to me. We have been here before. It is up to you to demonstrate how it makes sense.
It is not an invitation to bolekaja. It is a round about way of saying with your learning you can do more than that with a little more intellectual rigour. It is not an attempt to belittle you but a challenge to you to not belittle yourself.
I have not actually attacked the writer I have critiqued the written piece posted.
Let me back up a bit and develop further on my position. For you to present a unifying scenario you need a unifying
theory. ( I said the same of your earlier attempt with the Falola/ Adepoju thing. If you are at a loss as to how to fashion such sociological theories, thats why we have the likes of Oga Biko ( Agozino) on the forum. Sociological theories are part
of their forte.
It is not a sign of intellectual weakness to admit one does not know everything. This was what Oga Bolaji Aluko was driving at in the anecdote about their group's graduation dissertations( unless you want to walk and run without crawling like
Olayinka Agbetuyi did in his infancy. But this is hardly possible in adult engagements.)
After you first construct the impregnable theory to make your task feasible, then you hang your postulations on the theory and people can see how they fit ( you dont assume readers can see the implicit theory where none is provided- hence it
appears' meaningless' to them and that was what I was modelling in my previous post.) It is at this stage that methodology shows in bold relief in relation to the theory advanced. I . As you can see its not an easy task to gloss over as you have attempted
to.
But let me assure you it can be done with more work and more meticulousness. After all Levi Strauss did it, Max Weber did it and Ferdinand De Saussure did it.
In the Interim while waiting for the theory to be hewn out why not attempt first a modest engagement with the three systems presented as a well researched chapter per system of thought. People will be quite interested in different systems of
thought under one cover. Stage two can develop the chapters into book length further down the years.
As people begin to recognize your expertise still further down the years in the various systems you are busy honing a theory that can attempt a systematisation in collaboration with theory savvy sociologists and philosophers ( you may never
get a homogenisation because of the career closure it portends for experts in each systemic field. I made the same error at the start of my graduate studies in an essay I wrote about the world going ' babel- wards' when they should be unifying linguistically,
before an expert and mentor pointed out to me the errors of my ways. I humbly accepted)
A reader may react bluntly ( but not rudely) to a writer who seems to have a track record of
deliberately taking readers for a ride. The same reader may react in an urbane manner to another meticulous writer who made an occasional slip. The difference is the
style of each writer. We just need to raise the level to a healthy minimum standard for scholarship.
OAA.
Mr. President you took an oath to rule according to the Constitution.
Where are the schools to promote the teaching of the country's lingua francas?