Re contemporary, I was asking in a Nietzschean mode as he asked in his untimely meditations; really were his epistemological and philosophical insights timely or relevant to the spirit of the age that he wrote?

Sorry that I was not clear before.

Thank you for taking a crack at the questions.

I must confess I don't understand all what you mean, Peter. Untimely is clear, and not ill-timed. If you have two words, you should admit they don't mean the same thing. Many considerations in literature are untimely true, even if you don't understand why. Actual use of the word "contemporary" seems a contagious fashion full of confusions. I do agree with you when you say that it means "of the same time". In this respect, it is an historical concept (but what is your view about our common history juste now ? I don't know). On the other hand, I can't agree with your strategy of removing what you think "not helpful to the target audience". What do you know about this "target audience" ? You never know how people will understand what you say. You always will discover it after publishing. And most of the time, you will discover a part of irreducible misunderstanding. The question is : how to reduce this part of misunderstanding - if what you say is founded and already verified by others.

Thanks a lot. I'm French speaking, and I made a confusion with timeless. I beg you pardon.

Anyway, "premature" can be also true, even if truth is bad. Do you agree ? In this respect, an "untimely reflexion", even if relevant, may be rejected (in case of denial, for instance).  

Moreover, "untimely meditations" can be heard as a kind of humour. Don't you think so ? 

Originally, I was seeking substantive comment about issues in my writing, but I thank you so much for these insights and comments,

I have been teaching and researching with students whose native languages are non-European, so I searched for pathways to teach what I know to encourage difference in what they do or can know.

To get there, I have taught the contemporary and found Nietzsche a useful reference, of course to my way of thinking he was wondering whether his philosophy was "in step" with the current age in which he wrote--in America, we might say he was reflecting whether his thought was relevant? 

Also, I used Zola  particularly his Bonheur des Dames and the ways that the marketplace twists and turns meanings to address desires and the goals of making money.

A third source I use is Tanazaki the Japanese, In Praise of Shadows who writes about metaphors of light and darkness as each relate culturally to understanding.

Interestingly Giorgio Agamben discusses in his What is the Contemporary? metaphors for light and darkness in the current or and particular epoch. When we live in total darkness or absence of light our minds continue to think, don't they?

Jim kusch

Write me at: [email protected]

About epistemology--How we think or how we think about how we think I thought relates directly to how we know and learn language.

Dear Peter,

"[If "untimely" is used as a joke, you'll have to explain it to me! You're saying he really meant "timely"/"apposite", and said "untimely" because they weren't? Doh ... where is Homer Simpson when one needs a joke explained ....] "

Even when we nominally draw from the same set of words we cannot assume to be speaking the same language.  The meanings of an individual word can be illustrated by demonstrating its use in the context of other words, but this does not exhaust the meanings which can be conjured by the situational/social contexts in which sentences formed with those words might be delivered. Nor does it exhaust the opportunities for nuances of meaning derived from the myriad other non-epistemological factors involved with the delivery of those words.  It is in them that the opportunities and sources of humour most often lie.  These factors might be classified as being 'cultural artefacts' .  Hence what is funny to one audience, in the hands of a particular raconteur/comedian, may not be at all funny to another set of people using and hearing the same words.  Hence the cultural distance that exists between the UK and US 'sense of humour'... if I dare to be accused of excessive generalisation for a moment.

To take the most 'difficult' illustration at the root of this RG question that involves Nietzsche's musing concerning his own writings and ideas.  Perhaps, from my UK English perspective, he was trying to be amusing.  Can you see that?  Let me explain, by 'going out on a limb' again.  I do not know his biography so I am speculating for the sake of illustrating the point.

N. has noticed that his ideas are not being received well by the 'mainstream' of thinkers who he hopes to impress.  But he is building a strong and loyal following amongst the avant-garde. He is self-confident in his own capabilities and in his writings.  He observes that the 'mainstream' audience have much to lose individually from being seen to agree with him, or to even engage with him.  Whereas the opposite is true amongst his avant-garde audiences.  In self-deprecating 'mock mockery' of himself he suggests that his work is 'untimely' and 'premature' but because of the context in which he writes/speaks he is in fact making sarcastic comment directed at the 'inconvenience' he appears to pose in the lives of mainstream philosophers and academics.  Through the use of the words 'untimely' and 'premature', regarding himself and his works, he introduces, through their usage in common polite parlance, the associated ideas of 'death' and 'birth' and of the possibility of third-party judgement in relation to these events. This has the effect in the mind of the reader/listener of focussing them on the 'mainstream' audience's judgement of N's work and the connotation that their opposition is purely self-seeking, and not rational.  Further more that he sees any delay in their demise as 'untimely' and the need for these events to be 'premature'.

His is, perhaps, a wry and very dry form of humour.  One which would have been much appreciated by his avant-garde followers, who would have easily seen the humour given their points of view, but which would have been largely lost upon those who were the targets of his sarcasm.  A situation which would have rather confirmed in N. his own belief in his intellectual superiority over his antagonists and added to the humour he might have intended.  Bitter-sweet though it may have been.

Rob

I wonder if it is likely that a technical writer might one day write a successful 'Guide to Writing English Humour'?   My apologies for disturbing you.

Not disturbing at bit dear Robin Edward