Computers can't parse ambiguity, vagueness, metaphor or the like. Coders wil vouch for me that this does get a little exasperating: bugs in a piece of code, in addition to being logic bombs, are also due to our ability to work with lack of clarity in language annd a computer's inability to do so. Is this a disability (bug) or an ability (feature)?

Leibniz, I'm informed, envisioned a perfect logical language. Does such a language emphasize clarity, I'm not sure? Should, in my humble opinion, should! However, such a language would ignore or invalidate a large part of everyday conversation. Are we spouting nonsense 90% of the time we converse with each other? :chin:

Well said. And listen out for this pre-amble to a politician's speech: "Let me be clear...." Up until now politicians have been giving in to public demand for them to be vague, equivocal and ambiguous. But they have had enough. From now on they will - with our gracious permission - insist upon being clear. As if....

If you read Orwell’s essay he was not against metaphors at all.

http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/72/30.pdf

I avoid dead metaphors like the plague and never use them in any way, shape or form.

We’re like two peas in a pod, you and I :)

The problem with clarity is that it reveals how unclear our thinking is.

I believe that some intentionally obfuscate for one reason or another and that is their purgative, annoying as it may be.

I avoid dead metaphors like the plague and never use them in any way, shape or form. — Cuthbert

Amusing.

We’re like two peas in a pod, you and I — I like sushi

Birds of a feather....

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question−begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. — Orwell, 1946

Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question inaptness to act on any. — Thucydides, circa BC 400

Plus ca change....

Harry Frankfurt dug deeply into the motivations behind some kinds of cloudy vagueness - indifference to truth, bullshit. His concern is with intention more than with style.

For the essence of bullshit is not that it is false but that it is phony. In order to appreciate this distinction, one must recognize that a fake or a phony need not be in any respect (apart from authenticity itself) inferior to the real thing. What is not genuine need not also be defective in some other way. It may be, after all, an exact copy. What is wrong with a counterfeit is not what it is like, but how it was made. This points to a similar and fundamental aspect of the essential nature of bullshit: although it is produced without concern with the truth, it need not be false. The bullshitter is faking things. But this does not mean that he necessarily gets them wrong. — Frankfurt

https://uca.edu/honors/files/2018/10/frankfurt_on-bullshit.pdf

I find a growing number of posts on this forum fall too easily into the realm of ambiguity posing as clarity. It is almost like asking for further clarity is met by annoyance above any genuine wish to engage is discussion. — I like sushi

The Orwell essay is famous and it was certainly compulsory at my high school and later at university in the 1980's. There is a criticism that Orwell's advice, if followed widely, would result in a dull, methodical prose style, but the general gist is true as far as political writing is concerned.

I suspect the problem with some writing here is not so much the lack of clarity in syntax, it is the muddled thinking. People often seem to struggle to express their ideas and it is often difficult to work out what is being argued. Not sure they are being vague with language, it seems more likely that their ideas are meagre.

I doubt that Orwell can help because the problem isn't use of English, the problem is conceptual. And I'd throw into the mix that ideas presented are often held together by fallacious thinking. Perhaps people haven't really worked out what it is they are trying to say. They feel something is true and they fumble around for words and concepts to make the case. But even using perfect grammar, simple sentences and vivd metaphors, the ideas would remain confused.

There's a whole separate category for bullshit, sententious and pretentious writing out of the academy.

I avoid dead metaphors like the plague and never use them in any way, shape or form. — Cuthbert

:-)

it seems more likely that their ideas are meagre. — Tom Storm

Yes, what is conceived clearly is expressed easily.

You've just summarised my whole point in a vivid sentence. :victory:

It's not from me.

Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément.
-- Nicolas Boileau

Here is an example (not picking on this person, it is just a random example):

“Perhaps with the logical anticipation, or hope even, that his conventional foe will physically respond in kind by swinging at or hitting him, the unprovoked initiator/aggressor will feel confident and angered enough to willfully physically continue, finishing what he had essentially inexcusably started.”

I think we can all agree that this sentence doesn’t need to be anywhere near this long. Furthermore, the actual meaning is more easily lost and a second reading may be needed to get at the meaning.

Such writing wastes the time of the reader/writer when it comes to having a fruitful discussion.

And just to make clear I am not picking on anyone here in particular here is a snippet from one of my unedited pieces:

“Competition and cooperation across and between variegated strata, and the relative efficiencies of populations of said competition and cooperative manifolds.”

Perhaps people haven't really worked out what it is they are trying to say. — Tom Storm

Take care of the sense and the sounds will take care of themselves - Lewis Carroll

The problem with clarity is that it reveals how unclear our thinking is. — Fooloso4

:up:

Perhaps people haven't really worked out what it is they are trying to say. — Tom Storm

If they had there would be no point in saying anything.