[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 300x358, Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946047 No.1946047 [Reply] [Original]

Why are so many philosophers so bad at articulating their thoughts in a clear, concise manner?

Pic unrelated. He was quite capable of it, and he called out others for being unable to do so.

>> No.1946056

PLANTS HAVE FREE WILL

>> No.1946061

The better philosophers are straining against meta-lingual constraints and often have to invent their own jargon to satisfy their conceptual needs.

That's the difficulty of reading the better philosophers; their concerns are such that they're pushing language to its limits to resolve either complex metaphysical or even just metalingual problems.

As I'm sure some scholars will tell you, if you get to a certain stage with a philosopher like Heidegger, Hegel or Derrida, you will come to understand that their use of language is very well considered and composed.

>> No.1946065

if you ever try thinking you'll know.

>> No.1946068

Because philosophy also happens to be one of the most pretentious studies in human history.
Hell, just read the posts above and below mine. They will always be about you and me being way too inferior for something that would otherwise take not a lot too understand, if only it was concise.

>> No.1946073

>>1946061

So we're on a sliding scale where the more complex your language gets, the better philosopher you are?

>> No.1946086

Schopenhauer, like many posters on /lit/, was simply jelly of those who contributed more to human knowledge than he did. It's only natural to expect that he would criticize them, much like /lit/ does with contemporary authors and philosophers, for being too dense and insufficiently clear.

>> No.1946092

>>1946061
weren't you supposed to be a physicist?

>> No.1946095

>>1946086

How could they contribute more if people can't understand a thing they're trying to communicate?

>> No.1946097

>>1946061

So you are saying that it would be impossible to explain Heideggers shit in plain english? I beg to differ! If someone can't make it easy for someone to understand they don't understand it clearly themselves.

>> No.1946099

>>1946073
It really depends what sort of area you're dealing with.

Meta-normative anything will probably conform to something along those lines (although there will be a point where a maximum lingual distance is achieved and no more liberties really need to be taken).

Ethics, from certain grounds, and most politco-cultural thought isn't so problematic and so doesn't require any obtuseness, as is the knottier mathematical side of logic.

>> No.1946101

>>1946095
That's the fault of the reader, not the writer. Moreover, do you think people don't understand Hegel, or Derrida, or Lacan, all "dense" philosophers?

The limitations are within you, and only you.

>> No.1946102
File: 29 KB, 250x352, sartre..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946102

Why are so many philosophers so bad at combing their hair down in a clean, sharp manner?

Pic unrelated. He was quite capable of it, and he called out others for being unable to do so.

>> No.1946104

>>1946099
>Meta-normative anything

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about

>> No.1946110

>>1946101

Yes, it's clearly my fault that Hegel couldn't write a concise thought if his life depended on it.

>> No.1946113

Because philosophers practice baseless bullshit speculation. The more vague, obscure and arcane their writings, the better they can continue mentally masturbate and fabricate academic or scholarly personas that impress the intelligentsia and teenagers.

>> No.1946115

>>1946113
>continue TO mentally masturbate

>> No.1946120

>>1946110
clearly it's also the fault of every philosopher who came after to reference him and adopt him into the canon, too.

Is there something you don't understand? Obviously. That's your problem. Not going to fix it? Then fucking deal.

>> No.1946121

>>1946102

That's all he was capable of doing.

>> No.1946124

>>1946113
agreed at least anyone past 1800

>> No.1946126
File: 34 KB, 380x285, 1311151088874.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946126

>>1946104
Can you substantiate?

>> No.1946134
File: 52 KB, 428x510, 1292288616060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946134

>>1946104

>> No.1946138

>>1946126
i already have exemplified or should I say meta-exemplified?

>> No.1946142

>>1946120

Yes, it is the fault of every philosopher that came after him that adopted his fashionable nonsense.

>> No.1946143

>>1946101

Derrida and Lacan are frauds, please don't bring them into this you are only hurting your own argument. While there are some people who actually do use language to it's absolute limits to express themselves properly like Heidegger does beautifully, Lacan and Derrida took their simplistic ideas and purposefully dressed them up and made them more complicated than they actually were.

Lacan and Derrida abused and exploited people like you into thinking their ideas were complex.

While you are correct about some philosophers using complex language for the purposes of expanding ideas by creating new words, many tend to be fraudulent.

>> No.1946145

>>1946138
shitcore attempt at a troll?

I'm not sure you have, but don't let yourself get out of depth, before you shitpost again

>> No.1946149

>The better philosophers are straining against meta-lingual constraints and often have to invent their own jargon to satisfy their conceptual needs.

yes, my own struggle has been vastly improved ever since I started thinking of the problem through the lens of xzhijp53hn and pzhtj35

>> No.1946151

>>1946143
innocent until proven guilty

>> No.1946152
File: 124 KB, 598x483, 1306092736469.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946152

>>1946138
holy fucking lol

>> No.1946158

>>1946097
I'm saying that it's done by later commentators but only when it's made exactly clear how 'dasein' and 'gestell' function both lingually and ontologically.

Don't forget it's not the onus on the commentator to flesh out and argue fully these views

>> No.1946159

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/824-postmodernism-disrobed

>> No.1946160

>>1946149
when was the last time any one of your posts was constructive? Can human memory recall such a time, or is it lost to the ages forever?

>> No.1946162

>>1946121
>>1946121

that's being a little harsh...sure he contributed nothing of significance against physical causality, and his reciprocal incarnation of sexual desire was completely retarded...but as a fiction writer...he was pretty accomplished.
Nausea and the Wall were masterpieces in my opinion...his plays were so so

>> No.1946166

>>1946160
>constructive posts
>4chan

>> No.1946170

>>1946166
>argumentum ad populum

>> No.1946176

>>1946170
>implying you know what that means

>> No.1946177

>>1946149
If you're critical, things should usually be okay for you, dood. Although you lap up any old turdish two-cent piece farted out of the arsehole of Schopenhauerian thought, so this is in fact, a real problem for you...

>> No.1946178

>>1946151

http://www.richardwebster.net/thecultoflacan.html

http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/en/Shrink_from_Hell.htm

People calling out Lacan as a fraud is very low-key and mostly goes unnoticed. But honestly if yo haven't seen a single paper about how Derrida is shit you just haven't studied him.

>> No.1946185

Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content. The chances are that you would produce something like the following:

We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.

>> No.1946197

>>1946178
There are problems with Lacanian thought, particularly the real, but there are also bits of extreme importance and any attempt to cite that article, to forward this idea that Lacan was a fraud is problematic, simply because the theory works.

Come back to me, with an object relation philosophy that doesn't examine things through performative (imaginary circuit for Lacan) and linguistic (symbolic in Lacan), and doesn't suggest so sort of noumena (the Real). Otherwise, tell me why such an object relation philosophy is problematic in its functionality (and I know the good arguments for these and agree with a few of them in parts)

>> No.1946202

>>1946197

>Come back to me, with an object relation philosophy that doesn't examine things through performative (imaginary circuit for Lacan) and linguistic (symbolic in Lacan), and doesn't suggest so sort of noumena (the Real). Otherwise, tell me why such an object relation philosophy is problematic in its functionality (and I know the good arguments for these and agree with a few of them in parts)

Look at all this fucking jargon and nonsense. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

>> No.1946208

>>1946197

He has made contributions to literary analysis but everything else he does is shit. But I will concede that much.

>> No.1946224

>>1946047
Because fucking language. Philosophers never philosophed enough to the point of inventing an actual language that would serve their needs of clarity. You know why? Because they fucking love being obfuscation.

>> No.1946231

Caracalla, you are a disgrace for our profession.

>> No.1946236

>>1946159
God, those comments are painful. Dawkins and Rand acolytes who are butthurt 'cause they can't understand Derrida or Foucault . . so they write it off as obscurantist hullabaloo, instead of actually putting forth the creative effort to 'get' it. LOL, fags.

>> No.1946241

look, you dense faggots. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real

Now, how IN THE FUCK do you propose to make this into layman's language? You can try and try, but when you do you're bastardizing the idea itself.

>> No.1946244

>>1946231
>philosophy
>profession

I wager you're just d&e posting without a trip

>> No.1946245

>>1946197
>
Come back to me, with an object relation philosophy that doesn't examine things through performative (imaginary circuit for Lacan) and linguistic (symbolic in Lacan), and doesn't suggest so sort of noumena (the Real)
>come back to you when we can talk about the relationship between things with a way of speaking that doesn't involve words

ahahahahahaha

>> No.1946246

>>1946236
Philosophy isn't fiction. It doesn't need all the spinning around, all the veils over reality. It should be clear as glass. And no, not the fuzzy kind.

>> No.1946247

>>1946236

Foucault isn't hard to understand, and Derrida just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, Hell even Derrida scholars who have written books about the guy debate over what Deconstruction even is, if it can't be explained by top scholars who spend years reading his shit and writing books about it, it sounds like obscurantism to me.

>> No.1946249

>>1946149
awesome strawman
>>1946231
solid ad hominem

dont sweat it cararlalalralaca, they mad

>> No.1946258

>>1946249

Calling him a disgrace isn't an ad hominem. It wasn't even part of an argument. It was just an insult.

>> No.1946265

>>1946247
How do you understand deconstruction?

>> No.1946269
File: 18 KB, 255x248, Not_sure_if_serious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946269

>>1946258

>> No.1946274
File: 116 KB, 627x476, facepalm2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946274

>Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2

>> No.1946279

>>1946269

He's right. Insult =! ad hominem.

>> No.1946282

>>1946274
>d&e

just get the fuck out, I like CC, he's one of the better tripfriends

>> No.1946283

>>1946265

You don't.

>> No.1946288

if you anon guys want to filter satan and caracalla the rest of us tripfriends will understand

>> No.1946290

>>1946288
I'd filter you if I didn't laugh every time you post

>> No.1946292

>>1946279

obviously not when there aren't arguments involved.
but in this case there were

>> No.1946316

>>1946288

yous trippin brah
im neutral here...i usually support your mental prostitution and biting derision of the common prole...i'm just saying you might be out of your league in this particular instance

>> No.1946336

>>1946283

no. YOU dont

>> No.1946346

And again, tripfag circlejerking. Fuck you /lit/. No don't bother answering tripfaggots, I can't actually read you.

>> No.1946370

>>1946245
>>1946202
>Jargon

If you wanted to understand philosophy, you would express yourself with less shallow, unschooled skepticism.

>>1946245
Yeah, that's right, D+E, those are the only two ways of describing something through language and thus the only two modes of object philosophy, you're getting there!!

>>1946249
Put it here brotherrr.

>>1946290
Same with me, anon, same with me.

>> No.1946385
File: 16 KB, 240x250, 1291934098785.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946385

>>1946370
>If you wanted to understand philosophy, you would express yourself with less shallow, unschooled skepticism.

>> No.1946386

>>1946370

>If you wanted to understand philosophy, you would express yourself with less shallow, unschooled skepticism.

What does this have to do with anything?

>> No.1946389

>>1946370
>two ways of describing something through language
>two

so by signs and ?

>> No.1946399
File: 1.10 MB, 1940x1968, Jean-Paul_Sartre_FP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946399

Why do philosophers, who articulate their thoughts in a clear, concise manner, have so little to say?

>> No.1946408

>>1946385
>>1946386
He said something stupid, boys, I'm just trying to point it out to him. If he's OP, he's probably interested in philosophy, but he's disparaging for a stupid reason, an intellectual failing on his part. What am I gonna do, be friendly to him when he shitposts dumb things

>>1946389
Completely and utterly wrong level of language we're talking here. I'm not talking with what, but how language can define an object.

>> No.1946416

>>1946408

Calling someone stupid is a pretty bad way of trying to convince someone they're stupid.

Also, no you're stupid.

>> No.1946420

>>1946399

Because a lot of what philosophy is about is analysis of problems that don't really exist.

>> No.1946421
File: 34 KB, 410x347, laughing_cow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946421

>>1946416
>calling someone stupid

Nooo, I said he said something 'stupid.' There's an important difference. The one is bad 'ad hominem,' (which you've decided to use), the other is predicated in what the person said, in this case, your botched attempt to deprecate someone else for your own ignorance

>> No.1946430

>>1946421

How many times do we have to go over the "an insult in not an ad hominem" point?

I was arguing with you, I was just insulting you. And I wasn't even doing it all that sincerely.

>> No.1946432

>>1946430

wasn't*

>> No.1946436

>>1946408
>Completely and utterly wrong level of language we're talking here. I'm not talking with what, but how language can define an object.
but that doesn't answer my question dude. by signs and ?

>> No.1946438

>>1946420

>Because a lot of what philosophy is about is analysis of problems that don't really exist.
>is about is
>problems that don't really exist

>> No.1946439

>>1946430
You're playing a one-upman game, which is as good as an argument, and the insult thus as good as an ad hominem. By this logic, you are using a strawman fallacy...

This will only end in you embarassing yourself.

>> No.1946447

>>1946436
>I'm not talking with what, but how language can define an object.
>I'm not talking how, but how language can define an object.

lol, etc

>> No.1946451

>>1946430

enough with your retarded bullshit
when there are arguments being thrown around and you insult someone, it is an ad hominem even if you were not the one arguing (assuming you've been reading the arguments, and you didn't just come here to insult someone randomly)

>> No.1946454

>>1946439

>You're playing a one-upman game

I am?

Is it a fun game?

What are the rules?

Does it use dice? Because I haven't any dice.

>> No.1946459
File: 31 KB, 485x360, obama drinking a milkshake.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946459

>this thread

>> No.1946460

>>1946436
It does it tells you that's the wrong question to be asking. You should be asking how, using a semiotic system can i define something.

This should have been obvious if you hadn't just focussed on one part of my argument, which in the event meant no part of what you interpreted within the context of the argument.

>> No.1946464

>>1946454
refer yourself to this post >>1946451 and then, stop with the snarky sarcasm, it doesn't suit your level of intelligence.

>> No.1946465

>>1946460
>You should be asking how, using a semiotic system can i define something.
>semiotic system
uhhhh... with SIGNS? Just a wild guess here

>> No.1946468

>>1946451

Show me where I made the argument "You are wrong because you're X".

>> No.1946473

itt: a good linguist trolls the fuck out of teenagers who don't know shit about philosophy

>> No.1946489

>>1946465
Brilliant, brilliant, but unfortunately that 'with signs' part was patently implicit in 'semiotic system' so you're gonna have to think a bit more on the functionality of definition within semiology before you shitpost again (clue, it involves a linguistic system of co-relatives and a performative function of the object's instrumentality, these are the only two ways you can use sign to define).

>> No.1946501

>>1946468
It's the context, where you constantly taken a 'what the shit is this dude saying approach?' to stuff you don't understand in order to self-affirm.

>>1946473
Hope you're enjoying this as much as I am.

>> No.1946502

>>1946468

...you're just that stupid aren't you?

(this is also an ad hominem)

>> No.1946507

>>1946489
>that 'with signs' part was patently implicit in 'semiotic system'
no shit, you'll understand why "how, using a semiotic system can i define something" is such a stupid, obvious question then

>you're gonna have to think a bit more on the functionality of definition within semiology
Why would I need to do that, it's got nothing to do with what we've been talking about so far

>a linguistic system of co-relatives and a performative function of the object's instrumentality
>a linguistic system of signs and a sign of the object's instrumentality
But how's that two though? All you've given me so far is signs

>> No.1946710

>>1946507
>>1946507
C'mon dood, you're acting like a flaming idiot. You're trolling me with a lobotomy level argument, saying you can't understand what I say. Either you're too stupid to understand or clever enough to know you're in way too deep.

Long story short, you need to get your chops for our next encounter.

>> No.1946735

>>1946710
>!Np4hMu1ypU

hmmmm

>> No.1946774

>>1946047
Schopenhauer is the old version of wolverine

>> No.1946862
File: 16 KB, 300x250, walt-whitman-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946862

I can sum up this thread, and the nature of philosophy, in three words

>dick measuring contest


I should get a fucking medal

>> No.1946868
File: 34 KB, 411x411, tim_and_eric_lead.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1946868

>>1946735
>!Np4hMu1ypU
how !Np4hMu1ypU?

>!Np4hMu1ypU
What about !Np4hMu1ypU? I'm not sure it's been mentioned or that it's part of this argument.

>!Np4hMu1ypU
Not an inference, it's a deduction

(dadaist attempt at a D+E style shitpost

>> No.1946870

>>1946774

Can't unsee.

>> No.1947759

>>1946451
>it is an ad hominem even if you were not the one arguing
fullretard.jpeg

>> No.1947774

>>1946451
"Ad hominem" is when you use an insult to try and say someone is wrong. i.e., "you're stupid therefore you're wrong." Since you can be both stupid and right (if a stupid person thinks the world is round, it is indeed still round) that's a logical fallacy. But if he was calling you stupid BECAUSE of your opinion, i.e., if you thought the world was flat, and he said you were stupid because of that, not the other way around, it is, in fact, not ad hominem.

>> No.1947779

For the sake of pretentiousness, philosophy purposefully makes shit dense and obnoxiously retarded to read.

The best examples are post-modernist faggotry.

Fucking Derrida reads like a fucking internet blog of some random asshole. In the end, his ideas are worthless and unoriginal.

Kant is profound and remarkable, but he does the same shit. Being a generally obnoxious faggot.

>> No.1947798

Philosophers are just like everybody else. That is, most of them are shitty writers.

>>1946061
>The better philosophers are straining against meta-lingual constraints and often have to invent their own jargon to satisfy their conceptual needs

Please jump off the nearest tall building

>> No.1947807

>>1946102
>There are problems with Lacanian thought, particularly the real,

Can you tell me what the problems are? Seriously interested.

>> No.1947820

>>1947774
thank you, someone who understands what ad hominem means.

>> No.1948750

>>1947807
read the parallax view by Zizek, issues with German idealism and Heidegerrian ontology are demystified and metaphysics of inaccessibility are given new emphases. there are further problems involved in the way he's correlated his circuits to mental tendency (i.e. his desire, Freud's libido, the superego as varyingly interpreted, the big Other as likewise), although the imaginary is sort of linked to narcissitic tendencies and the symbolic to sorts of disassociation, if that helps.

>>1947774
Correct

>>1947798
Obvious 14 year old is all too obvious. Lrn2read, dood

>>1947779
Derridean linguistic criticism is damn useful. Wherever I've used the word differance in this thread, someone's been buttfucked, have a scan. If I explained this idea, you'd probably understand it and hold to it. The fact is Derrida had to explain with structuralist jargon and hermeneutic technique so that it fit structuralism (of some sort). This whole deconstructionism thing also works if you know your post-structuralist cultural studies, you'll know that it's happened a lot and been used to open up whole new fields.

>> No.1948763

I'm not gonna discuss philosophy here but caracalla has my support.

>> No.1948906

Wittgenstein said it best, philosophers take very simple concepts and make them very hard to understand.

Read Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and some slant-eye shit like Lao Tse and just keep living your life.

>> No.1948943

Heidegger may use jargon, but he also reapts his points multiple times so it balances out. He can even wax poetic when he wants to.

>> No.1948966

ITT:
-D&E pretends to not understand stuff to piss people off (again)
-Caracalla got trolled while trying to generate good content
-Anon fails to do anything distinguishable and makes people with names more important
-no good content

>> No.1948969

>>1946149
How are you doing nick land?

>> No.1948981

>>1948966
the guy that said Homer and Ovid, Balzac and Wilfred Scott in the same breath is unlikely to know anything much about literature.

The guy that conflated nihilism as belief with some sort of depression (I'd probably say anhedonia from what I remember) knows NOTHING about philosophy.

When will everyone get it into their heads that DEEP isn't secretly being coy with what he knows, he is actually making up for his lack of knowledge and poor critical faculties with his transparent obfuscatory semantic wrangling. The people that do believe this are the ones trolled...

>> No.1948985

>>1948966
>D&E pretends to not understand stuff
wouldn't have much of an excuse to post on this board otherwise

>> No.1948992

>>1946185

And yet I can clearly understand this.

>> No.1948999
File: 6 KB, 259x194, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1948999

>>1948985