Fair enough. I was having an echange with https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/3486/echarmion regarding determinism vs free will, and he appeared to exit the conversation when I asked him to define freedom, after he gave an argument about how freedom is a way to describe reality, which in my opinion was a confusing way to frame the argument, so I asked for a definition. This is actually what prompted me down this line of thinking which led to me beginning this discussion.

Edit: after looking a little harder, I see there is a response, it is just the way notifications work here, I was not notified because I was not "mentioned" in the reply

The Sokal affair seems relevant to the topic. I think it was one of the best things ever.

Well, that too yes. Sometimes fancy ass words actually represent a concept that is not easy to put in other words and/or saves a lot of time. It can be a shorthand between experts, lay or professional. Or someone can be showing off. Or one can be compounding abstractions and ideas so far from experience that it ends up like the most wanky art criticism. you could pretty much say anything like in the Sokol hoax.

I don't think the link is right.

I was linking to the profile of the person with whom I was conversing, not directly to the conversation. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6513/arguments-for-free-will/p4 that takes you to the exchange.

Yeah I am okay with experts using jargon to expedite communication, I guess where I have an issue is when communication bogs down when one party decides to deliberately complicate their language. Reducing the bandwidth of information transfer between two parties fro arbitrary reasons seems rather useless.

Yeah I am okay with experts using jargon to expedite communication, I guess where I have an issue is when communication bogs down when one party decides to deliberately complicate their language. Reducing the bandwidth of information transfer between two parties fro arbitrary reasons seems rather useless. — rlclauer

Sure, and that's where cases can help. Especially here where people with some expertise are conversing with others who have little and then others have a lot. What seems like posturing might simply be not realizing what communication is best given the experience of the other person.

But I agree that people can get fancy ass - my wording - for the wrong reasons.

A suggestion: turn the thread into case studies. While reading other threads come back with what you consider obfuscatory language in a quote, plus a link so we can see the context. I doubt we will all agree, but I think specifics will tease out at least the different criteria. And we can actually test out the critieria.

One criterion seems to be: there is a simpler way to say it. We can see if the examples pass this test. For example. — Coben

Here is my submission:

On the idea of the correct-ness of concepts:

Concepts are nothing but half a relational proposition, from which a cognition becomes possible, the other half herein being beyond the scope. Whether or not a concept relates to its object is the purview of judgement. It follows that any error in cognition, or even if a cognition can be given, is the fault of judgement, and has nothing to do with whether or not the concept in use is correct in itself, but only has to do with whether or not it is itself the correct concept to use. — Mww

It's one of those passages that you can read three or four times over, and yet still be like: what the fuck is he saying?

Could you edit in a link to the context. And it did make me laugh and my eyelids got heavy reading it. I think the hypen in the middle of correctness might be considered a warning sign.

Could you edit in a link to the context. And it did make me laugh and my eyelids got heavy reading it. — Coben

The username under the quote is a link to the discussion. You'll also find my brilliant parody.

I think the hyphen in the middle of correctness might be considered a warning sign. — Coben

:lol:

The username under the quote is a link to the discussion. — S

Thanks. I've read it a few times. I wonder if it might be a failure to communicate well rather than obfuscatory discourse. Now, those are not mutually exclusive terms, but I say this because for me the words he uses and not problematic in and of themselves - iow given my comfort level with the terms. It doesn't strike me, now, as

when communication bogs down when one party decides to deliberately complicate their language — rlclauer

Now it might be that. He's talking about motive and I can't be sure of that.

In any case it strikes me as someone stringing together too many abstractions, but fairly non-jargony ones, sort of forgetting that it's hard to follow.

I checked ahead in the thread and he does not clarify. So perhaps we'll never know.

I am not particularly disagreeing with you, just saying I think it might be another kind of problematic communication than riclauer meant. We can see what he says.

I've read it a few times. — Coben

Would you like an aspirin?

Yes, it was like threading needles, many, without my reading glasses. Though easier then Derrida.

You may be right, I might be misunderstanding. I am a lay person and fairly new to all of this stuff. I do not even have a degree so my lack of training might be showing

I only meant in relation to S's example. I am absolutely sure there are cases of what you mean going on here and in other forums. That's why I think the cases are important. Not to prove you right or wrong, but to see what our criteria are and what we think of specific examples. And sometimes we may not, as a group or as individuals, be able to weigh in for sure on a specific post. This one S quoted in is not one I am sure of. I don't think it is particularly jargony or obfuscating, but rather too dense with abstractions. But I'm not sure. I wish he'd tried to clarify what he meant. That process might help us decide.

Concepts are nothing but half a relational proposition, from which a cognition becomes possible, the other half herein being beyond the scope. Whether or not a concept relates to its object is the purview of judgement. It follows that any error in cognition, or even if a cognition can be given, is the fault of judgement, and has nothing to do with whether or not the concept in use is correct in itself, but only has to do with whether or not it is itself the correct concept to use. — Mww

It seems fairly clear to me. He's saying that the idea of concepts being incorrect in themselves is incorrect. He's referencing Kant's "thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind", saying that cognition is not possible without concepts and that errors in cognition result not from incorrect concepts but from incorrect use of them. A child sees a horse and thinks "big dog" for example. The concept of a horse as a "big dog" is not incorrect, but its use is cognitively incorrect. See the distinction?

As to the OP, I think language can be arcane, and there may be poetic value in that, if it makes you think, put effort into interpreting what is written, and think differently. Some complex allusive ideas cannot be translated into simple "literal" language without any loss of conceptual richness. Of course if you have no taste for poetry then you won't like a lot of "continental" philosophy. I like to say that in philosophy there are two main traditions: there is the Anal Tradition and the Incontinent Tradition; the retentive and the expressive.

I wish he'd tried to clarify what he meant. — Coben

Why would I, when no one asked me for it. And usually no one asks, for one of two reasons: no one cares enough, or, it’s so much easier to make fun of the writer, then to query for an understanding of the written.

Thank you. Twice. Cuz now I don’t have to do it myself.

My pleasure. For what it's worth I always enjoy your contributions because they make me think harder and often in novel ways.

I can’t lie.....my ego says thank you too. You know how they are.....nosey, noisy little buggers.

So, now we have a clarification accepted by Mww

Which means we can see if it could have been clearer from the beginning. Note that Janus' explanation is longer.

Mww's paragraph has 90 words and 396 letters.
Janus' clarification has 79 words and 404 letters.

Approximately equal length.

Do S and riclauer find Janus' explanation clear? Clearer?

Since they are about the same length, does this mean, if it is clearer, that the original was problematic?

One immediate difference is an example in the clarification. Another is that the clarification mentions Kant. Allowing one to put the argument in a context. Should these, ideally, have been there in Mww's post?. It seems like Mww effectively communicated to Janus what he meant. What obligation is there to people who might not have realized Kant was implicit? Perhaps this was clear in context back there that he was working with Kant's ideas. Did S miss that?

A lot of the classic philosophers get pretty dense, with their own coined terms, use of different languages, their own idiosyncratic uses of words. Is that OK? If so, why would it not be OK here?
Do we think that here it is more a lay forum, so it would be good to assume less about the other's abilities? Or would this be least skilled dumbing down?

Good post. Even if it had nothing to do with somewhat exonerating me, it would still be a good post.

I gave an example.

Another person said it made sense to him. YEA!! Count ‘em....TWO!!!

I make no apologies for my writing style, a cross between Andy Rooney and Stephen King I always say, and I will never dumb down my entries here.

Moving on......

I agree that there could be cases where my original argument applies. Also, with respect to Mww's and Janus's weighing in on this specific case, there are also examples of people lacking the reading background on a subject, or perhaps lacking even the ability to process the information in any meaningful way. In those cases, I suppose when encountering what appears to be esoteric would be a signal to improve the level of one's understanding before engaging. I think my OP may have been reactionary, even though many better mind's than mine weighed in with agreements, albeit, much better qualified and informed agreements. Getting the right answer for the wrong reasons is not something to celebrate. (As is probably the case with my OP)

:lol: They're like the most annoying pets (or pests?) that we feel we can't bring ourselves to euthanaze.

euthanaze — Janus

You mean 'kill'?

I won't allow myself to euthanaze and now I'm not even allowed to euphemize??? :joke:

Thinking further I guess it begs the question as to whose misery I'd be putting them out of.

I won't allow myself to euthanaze and now I'm not even allowed to euphemize??? — Janus

Better to pass them away painlessly and gently.

Better to pass them away painlessly and gently. — PoeticUniverse

Isn't that just what euthanasia is, though? Perhaps that painlessness and gentleness is the difference between killing and euthanazing, so perhaps I was not euphemizing after all?

There is a link to a pdf by Graff, which is a paper he wrote about the fact that academia has an unjustified culture of obtuse and obfuscatory communication styles. This is not just limited to overly-jargonized communication to other specialists in a narrow field, but also to general academic discourse and literature, which is written in esoteric manners, which are often inaccessible to general audiences.

The general thrust of the paper is that this is an unnecessary addition to the academic process. — rlclauer

Yup. Unquestionably a problem.

My personal take on this situation, is that even in philosophical conversations, the likes of which occur in this forum, can become overly pedantic and obtuse — rlclauer

It is a bit of a problem here, but I find it far worse in the average document published by a college professor. Around here, when I can't understand people, I generally blame my inadequate knowledge of the subject being discussed. I only call people out for being pedantic if it is a subject I am very confident in.

Have you ever read anything by an English professor? Literary criticisms are the most pedantic documents I have ever read...it also seems intentional. I wouldn't mind except high school english teachers assign these pieces of garbage to their students (with the expressed intent of clarifying their understanding of whatever book they are reading).

While I am in general agreement, one's level of education must be taken into consideration. What may seem to be clearly stated to someone with the requisite knowledge of the subject matter may sound like nonsense to someone who is not familiar with the terminology and issues. If one wishes to discuss the work of philosophers then one needs to move beyond the level of ordinary discourse, which does not adequately address such matters. — Fooloso4

Does it seem strange that I can 100% agree with this, and 100% agree with the OP? I don't think anything was specifically said that would discount what you wrote here.

Titles thread: "Obfuscatory Discourse". — StreetlightX

hehe, what, does that seem a pedantic title to you?

As to the OP, I think language can be arcane, and there may be poetic value in that, if it makes you think, put effort into interpreting what is written, and think differently. Some complex allusive ideas cannot be translated into simple "literal" language without any loss of conceptual richness. Of course if you have no taste for poetry then you won't like a lot of "continental" philosophy. I like to say that in philosophy there are two main traditions: there is the Anal Tradition and the Incontinent Tradition; the retentive and the expressive. — Janus

As I almost always agree with, or learn from, your posts, let me disagree and see if I can learn something.

Does the speaker have any responsibility in being understood?

What you have wrote seems to imply we all have communication preferences (undoubtedly true), so misunderstanding will occur? (correct my misunderstanding where needed)

MOST, certainly not all, but most people who can use pedantic language are smart enough to be aware of it. Therefor, they should be smart enough to NOT use it if they are hoping to communicate with a large swathe of humanity.

Now I can admit there are some very bright people that may primarily operate using vague figurative language...and some of these people may do it so regularly that it is just who they are, and they can't even realize they are doing it (@Mww and @PoeticUniverse come to mind). I don't find these people pedantic, but I do find that I have to read much of what they write multiple times before it makes sense.

Some complex allusive ideas cannot be translated into simple "literal" language without any loss of conceptual richness. — Janus

I am sure I am being stupid, but can you give me a non-art example of this? Or do you mean stuff like the word "red" cannot capture everything we experience when we see "red"...ugh, I hope it is not that as that example NEVER causes confusion in a conversation. I have never had someone question what I meant when I said "red".