Reminder that if a philosopher can’t explain their ideas in simple terms there are a hack

[Anonymous No.15074019]

Meet Leibniz, inventor of modern day calculus notation (dx/dy), estimated to have IQ of 200, and write of Monadology. Leibniz’s writing style is simple and direct, and this is the most telling sign of supreme intelligence.

Not hacks like Kant and Heidegger

[Anonymous No.15074027]

Both Kant and Heidegger are very clear and direct. Confirmed for never having read them.

[Anonymous No.15074049]

>>15074019
kant is pretty direct but it's very autistic, in a good way.

[Anonymous No.15074056]

>>15074019
Haha I also elevate things that only cater to me

[Anonymous No.15074064]

>>15074019
Kant and Heidegger are more straightforward than Leibniz at times. I think you mean hacks like Hegel, Derrida and Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.15074068]

>>15074019
>entire philosophy ruined by a caffeine-addicted Frog

[Anonymous No.15074072]

Leibniz is one of the most opaque and misunderstood philosophers in history. There is absolutely nothing like a consensus on Leibniz's true philosophy or ultimate philosophical positions. The most you can do is read like two dozen works by him and read a 700 page biography and try to get some sense of the whole.

[Anonymous No.15074075]

>>15074019
Sorry could you explain this philosophy of yours more directly?

[Anonymous No.15074081]

>>15074064
Hegel,

[Anonymous No.15074084]

>>15074019
Kant is one of the clearest philosophers around--his philosophy is just hard. He isn't known for being unclear or obtuse. That's Hegel.

[Anonymous No.15074092]

>>15074072
It’s positivism, monotheistic, theistic. Essentially, God created the best possible world for us to live on.

Voltaire made fun of his ideas in Candide where the main character is experiencing rape and war every where and still does best of all possible worlds

[Anonymous No.15074099]

>>15074064
>I think you mean hacks like Hegel, Derrida and Deleuze.
Careful. You'll summon an army of screeching post-modernists who absolutely refuse to define what post-modernism actually is, but will at the same time have no problem calling you a pseud for supposedly getting it wrong.

[Anonymous No.15074111]

>>15074092
One of the best shit posts in philosophy. Leibniz constructs this immense system of philosophy and Voltaire shits on it with a novella.

[Anonymous No.15074117]

>>15074111
Voltaire was an edgy fedora tipping atheist

[Anonymous No.15074121]

>>15074099
Looks like someone got BTFO in another thread

[Anonymous No.15074125]

>>15074111
There's a good reason Nietzsche was such a huge fan of Voltaire.

[Anonymous No.15074126]

>>15074027
>>15074064
>Heidegger clear
This is a joke right.

[Anonymous No.15074129]

>>15074121
No. I like some of those philosophers; I hate most of the people who claim to like them, however.

[Anonymous No.15074130]

>>15074121
The only thing a Deleuzian is btfoing is his own sanity

[Anonymous No.15074138]

>>15074126
No. Read the Kantbuch and his lectures instead of Sein und Zeit

[Anonymous No.15074142]

>>15074019
>Leibniz
When I tried to read Leibniz, he was the one philosopher whose work I found absolutely impenetrable. I didn't exactly try, but still. He isn't easy to understand at all.

[Anonymous No.15074144]

>>15074111
I would be more impressed if Voltaire designed a better world

[Anonymous No.15074941]

>>15074019
Didn't Spinoza BTFO him?

[Anonymous No.15075716]

>>15074019
thank you. people who do not think clearly cannot write clearly.

[Anonymous No.15075742]

>>15074019

>why don't writers describe really complex topics in really simplistic terms?

Honestly fucking ridiculous that the public still makes this demand. You would never look at the work of a highly specialized astrophysicist or a biochemical engineer or an epidemiologist and go "stop being a pretentious retard and explain things in a way everyone can understand lol xD". With STEM subjects, for whatever reason people can wrap their mind around the idea that more advanced discourse is necessary than what the public can understand. Now ask yourself -- why the fuck should the humanities or the social sciences be any different??

Sometimes highly specialized writers such as philosophers have to use polysyllabic words to get their meaning across. Get used to it or quit whining.

[Anonymous No.15075746]

>>15074019
What the fuck are you talking about? Leibniz is even more obscure than Kant.

[Anonymous No.15075758]

>>15074941
other way around

[Anonymous No.15075764]

>>15075742
>Now ask yourself -- why the fuck should the humanities or the social sciences be any different??
because STEM authors are writing about real stuff rather than made up bullshit

[Anonymous No.15075794]

>>15075764
Oh right, very real and impactful things like dark matter, quantum entanglement, and neoliberal economics, which are not at all IMAGINARY like those books that deal with social hierarchies, the influence of mass media, or changing attitude towards sex and gender.

Get a fucking clue.

[Anonymous No.15075811]

>>15074064
Hegel was just a poor stylist; Derrida was clear and a good stylist, just complicated; Deleuze was intentionally obscure

[Anonymous No.15075818]

>>15075742
While I agree with this on some level, if you truly know what you're talking about you should be able to pass the "elevator pitch" test, that is, be able to summarize your research in less than a minute and in a way that an unfamiliar person would understand. If someone can't do that for their thesis then there's a good chance it's pseduointellectual bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15075828]

>>15074019
>estimated to have IQ of 200
>totally btfo by some lens grinder
I don't get why do you still believe in the brain number

[Anonymous No.15075853]

>>15075818
Yes I'd agree. But it's not necessarily important that an academic's publications are readily digestible to the public. This fact is taken for granted for STEM subjects and not for philosophy, literature, sociology etc. where people like OP demand over-implification at the expense of critical detail.

Not equating obscurity with complexity is of course as important as ever. But the hacks like Herbert Spencer or Paul de Man or whoever tend to fall by the wayside.

[Anonymous No.15075859]

>>15075818
>if you truly know what you're talking about you should be able to pass the "elevator pitch" test
Why?

[Anonymous No.15075927]

>>15075859
>If someone can't do that for their thesis then there's a good chance it's pseduointellectual bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15076016]

>>15074019
>Thus, although each created monad represents the whole universe, it represents more distinctly the body that is exclusively assigned to it, and of which it forms the entelechy. And just as that body expresses the whole universe through the interconnection of all matter in the plenum, the soul also represents the entire universe by representing its particular body.
wow this cleared everything up! thanks op!

[Anonymous No.15076109]

>>15075794
>Oh right, very real and impactful things like dark matter, quantum entanglement, and neoliberal economics, which are not at all IMAGINARY like those books that deal with social hierarchies, the influence of mass media, or changing attitude towards sex and gender.
Yes, unironically. If you read more books about the former and less about the latter you wouldn’t be such a retard.

[Anonymous No.15077251]

>>15076016
That's not hard to understand though. Are you some kind of midwit bro?

[Anonymous No.15077281]

>>15075742
Stop being dishonest. Science and good philosophy is built on logic and evidence. All terminology is rigorously defined. In contrast, so-called "French theory" is just unmoored verbosity.

[Anonymous No.15077282]

>>15076016
seems pretty clear to me bro. maybe you just have a low verbal IQ?

[Anonymous No.15077289]

>>15074019
That being said he had no idea Spinoza was critical of him as far as I've understood

[Anonymous No.15077576]

>>15077289
I thought he had sort of similar views to Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.15077587]

>>15074121
Looks like he got BTFO in this thread too lmao

[Anonymous No.15077601]

>>15075818
And yet people are judging Heidegger or Kant as though they're around to defend their ideas and give their own "elevator pitch". This whole "if you can't say something simple, don't say it at all" meme should not be applied to philosophers who are dead. And on top of that, writers like Kant do summarise their ideas and intentions in the introduction, its not like you can't find a passage from the critique that is straightforward to read and gives a broad overview of what he wants the critique to achieve. OP is just being thick.

[Anonymous No.15077606]

>>15077289
Presumably because Spinoza is also incomprehensible. Though not because he writes poorly (which is a separate argument), his philosophy just requires the most incredible tautological bending of definitions to make sense of it.

[Anonymous No.15077610]

>>15075811
Hegel wrote the way he did by design. He was capable of acceptable prose, but chose to write in such a strange manner as he felt it helped convey his thoughts more clearly. German/English are poor languages for conveying metaphysics when compared to Sanskrit/Arabic, maybe the way he wrote attempted to get around this. It makes you think in a certain way that would not be possible with normal prose.

[Anonymous No.15077626]

>>15074099
if you want an actually decent breakdown of pomo, watch this
https://youtu.be/VFtQv0DtyQ0

[Anonymous No.15077643]

>>15075927
Why?

[Anonymous No.15077658]

>>15075764
very deep thought, anon. now go back to sci

[Anonymous No.15077979]

>>15074144
You thinking it's so don't make it so
We all live in the same world, the one who clearly understands it better is the superior

[Anonymous No.15077989]

>>15074019
I think it's evident that mathematician's IQ > ph*losoqueer IQ

[Anonymous No.15078024]

>>15077658
He's right, you know.

[Anonymous No.15078042]

>>15074019
Leibniz is a boss. You can't just criticize him because his work is too hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.15078049]

>>15074111
Leibniz's privately cynical notes-to-self reveal that he didn't take his own "hurrah for the status-quo" LARP system to heart, so my question is whether Voltaire detected that fact about him by the nature of the mask: Creatures of Panglossian blind faith and unknowingly self-destructive passivity are a thousand for every one that plays them in one way or another, so Voltaire's sendup would be more accurate to Leibniz in particular if he bore a noticeable resemblance to Moliere's Tartuffe. Does he?

[Anonymous No.15078262]

>>15077610
> German/English are poor languages for conveying metaphysics when compared to Sanskrit/Arabic
Different anon. You know Sanskrit/Arabic? What makes them special?

[Anonymous No.15078453]

>Poverty of mind, confusion and perversity of thought will clothe themselves in the most far-fetched expressions and obscure forms of speech, in order to cloak in difficult and pompous phrases small, trifling, insipid, or commonplace ideas. It is like the man who lacks the majesty of beauty, and wishes to make up for this deficiency by clothing; he attempts to cover up the insignificant or ugliness of his person under barbaric finery, tinsel, feathers, ruffles, cuffs, and mantles. Thus many an author, if compelled to translate his pompous and obscure book into its little clear content, would be as embarrassed as that man would be if he were to go about naked.

Based Schoppy BFTOs the pomo-fags 150 years in advance

[Anonymous No.15078514]

>>15077601
Yeah true, it more applies to today's academics. In those times you had to be part of the educated aristocracy to even begin to care about philosophy and so there was no point in trying to make something more palatable to the everyman

[Anonymous No.15078547]

>>15078453
so based

[Anonymous No.15078558]

>>15077610
Dunno about eastern languages, but German is much better suited to philosophy in general than English or French

[Anonymous No.15079782]

>>15078049
>Leibniz's privately cynical notes-to-self
Do you have any specific examples? I'm curious

[Anonymous No.15079796]

>>15078453
Very based

[Anonymous No.15079804]

>>15076016
You might be a smoothbrain my dude

[Anonymous No.15079807]

>>15077251
>>15077282
>bro words like entelechy and plenum are examples of simple and direct language
>BRO WORDS LIKE PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA ARE NEEDLESSLY COMPLEX, STOP THAT RIGHT NOW.
drinkingsoibox.jpg

[Anonymous No.15079819]

>>15079804
see
>>15079807

[Anonymous No.15079829]

>>15079819
But Anon I like land

[Anonymous No.15079925]

>>15077251
>>15077282
>>15079804
explain what it means then.
>pro-tip: you won't.

[Anonymous No.15080007]

>>15074117
this

[Anonymous No.15080009]

>>15078453
Why does schopy look black in so many pictures?

[Anonymous No.15080015]

>>15079829
then why would you ever jerk off over philosophers being direct and easy to read

[Anonymous No.15080030]

>>15074027
Kant is quite clear and logically precise if a bit verbose. The difficulty reading him is that he is discussing concepts that are far from everyday experiences or the obvious.
Heidegger has a highly elliptical style that constant bends back on itself and uses a unique terminology. With a little effort it starts to make sense but it makes more sense in its native German because it is an agglutinate language so compound phrases like present-to-hand or taking-as make more sense

[Anonymous No.15080036]

>>15080030
Dunno why I overused "make sense" so much it's kind of ironic lol

[Anonymous No.15080056]

>>15078049
>his own "hurrah for the status-quo" LARP system
confirmed for not having read or understanding Leibniz

[Anonymous No.15080192]

>>15077626
kys zolt