Case in point, there is typo in my title. Is there a way to edit? NVM, found it.

You're equating people posting on philosophy forums with philosophers in general?

Is that a statement or a question?

Writing graceful accessible prose is hard work. It's easier to sling cant and jargon. Yes, some people try too hard to sound erudite. They use too many words like "erudite". This is by no means limited to philosophers, however. Lots of learned folk could not write a graceful, easily understood sentence about something reasonably complicated if their lives depended on it.

Write the best prose you can, and maybe someone will notice that it sounds good and will copy your style. If not, at least people will be able to understand you.

Glad you found your way here. Welcome.

No, I don't think philosophers are trying too hard to sound smart.

Philosophy is one of those things that you have to actually do yourself to understand it. Philosophy cannot be communicated like a pop-science magazine that tells you we've discovered this or solved that problem. It's a pro and a con. A pro being that it can really change your life for the better. A con being that it makes a lot of impatient people look down on philosophy as being "obscure" or what have you.

So when philosophers are communicating to the public, they admittedly have to tone down the intellectual talk, which unfortunately sacrifices important nuances that get reflected in the comment sections of newspaper editorials. But when philosophers are writing to other philosophers, they don't need to really worry about being "over-intellectual".

A more important problem with philosophy (and other forms of inquiry for that matter) would be the exoteric vs esoteric divide. A metaphysician may understand what "substance" means, or what "metaphysical grounding" means, but nobody else does.

Good prose is definitely hard work; I have been a student of the craft for many years. Well, for most my adult life actually. I think the problem is that many people confuse good writing with complicated writing and big words. While the truth is, good writing is about simplicity and clarity, and simplicity is actually harder to achieve than complexity. Anyone can hammer out a convoluted sentence, but to communicate a convoluted idea in a simple sentence that takes real talent.

Or the barrier is not philosophy itself, but instead an inability to communicate philosophy. Communication is an art that takes work to learn how to do well. It would be unrealistic to assume simply because someone studies philosophy that they are also good communicators of philosophy.

Generally the people writing those pop-science magazine are people who specialize in what is know as scientific journalism, or at least they are held to those standards. They have both an understanding of science and writing.

It doesn't seem like philosophers are trying too hard to sound smart. They seem to be trying too hard to be artful (rather than accurate) with their use of language.

instead I think it is because writing is hard and people are just generally not very good at it. — Jeremiah

Someone has been watching Steven Pinker videos. I bought that book.

Especially post-modernists, here is the professor of words speaking of them.

It's a signal. Rather than saying, "The father gets mad because his daughter keeps asking 'why'," I once heard a philosophy professor say, "The father's anger is indexed to his daughter's repeated questioning." The purpose of the jargon is to say to other people, "Ah, yes! I, too, can do the philosophy!"

I suspect that this happens because learning jargon to use as a merit badge to display to other people that you've been exposed to academia is much easier than having any worthwhile or original insights.

"Someone has been watching Steven Pinker videos. I bought that book."

I have no idea who that is.

"I suspect that this happens because learning jargon to use as a merit badge to display to other people that you've been exposed to academia is much easier than having any worthwhile or original insights."


I am sure that is part of it. For example if you pay attention you'll notice people who are tying to sound academic use the word however instead of but, even though they have the same meaning. However just sounds more official, or scholarly. And this is something that happens across all studies. It is no secret when people enter academia they start using however. I am not knocking the use of however, as I am a big fan of the word; just an observation.

Though, I think there is a bit more too it than that. Studies have shown that people primarily learn how to write by reading, and I think if philosophers took to reading literature or poetry more often it would help them clean up their writing and make it more digestible. Philosophers may be great at philosophizing but if you want to learn how to write it makes sense to learn from writers. I think Albert Camus is a great in between for philosophers, as he was both.

Looking foolish is anathema among academics who have spent thousands of years thriving by promoting themselves as no-nonsense workaholics and suppressing their own sense of humor in favor of searching for greater truth and beauty. Its not so much that they try to sound intelligent, as they bend themselves into pretzels attempting to avoid looking foolish because their tradition is to pound away at the excluded middle and anyone foolish enough to get caught in the middle can get pounded into the dirt. Which is why Copernicus only published his theory on his deathbed and Max Planck begged his colleges to explain the joke. When money does all the driving nobody is steering and its Three Stooges slapstick all the way. The nail that stands out gets pounded down hard which also explains why Einstein had a third rate job as a clerk only thanks to his roommate's father taking a liking to him.

I guess so, but if you take Immanuel Kant, who was a huge philosopher, he was an unattractive writer. I don't know, you kind of need a balance. I'm new here, so I'm not sure, but if you dumb down questions, you can kind of ruin what they were going for. :D

Let's not confuse "dumbing down" with clarity and conciseness.

Don't be fooled by my join date, I have been reading Philosophy Forums for many years; I was holding out hope the old site would get fixed but I guess it is long dead.

So what is your take? Why do people on these forums, and the old ones, sound like they are trying too hard?

Personally, I don't think it is because the content demands more complicated language, nor do I think it is because philosophers are smarter than your average dog; instead I think it is because writing is hard and people are just generally not very good at it. — Jeremiah

I think I might remember you from the old forum. Did you have a dog as your avatar? A dog with glasses?

I very much relate with that sentiment. I am probably guilty myself to some extent, but I do try to put things plainly. There's a whole load of philosophical jargon out there that I've never really felt the need to use, nor thought that it would be better if I did - Heideggerese, for example.

It was only the other day that I mentioned that I have never felt the need to use the term "spiritual enrichment" - a term I crudely deemed to be mumbo-jumbo (and might have irked one or two people by doing so). I don't like vagueness and obscurity in language, so I tend to want to break things down, simplify, into something that I am better able to grasp.

You're equating people posting on philosophy forums with philosophers in general? — Terrapin Station

Is that a statement or a question? — Jeremiah

A question. The sort you ask with a raised eyebrow.

A question. The sort you ask with a raised eyebrow. — Sapientia

Too bad we don't got an emote for that. :D It was an annoying emote, anyways.



To be honest, I feel like people on philosophical forums do try to sound smart through language and sometimes it causes misunderstanding or even heated debates. Most of the time it leads to petty arguments that could be regarded as irrelevant, such as arguing about the definition of something. Nonetheless, these people that post on philosophical forums usually aren't as well disciplined as actual philosophers of academics.

Rather than blame philosophers, we might want to blame English teachers for not teaching students how to write. The unwillingness of many professionals (outside of advertising) to match their prose to the needs at hand is a running sore.

I waged a long battle with public health pros back in the earlier days of AIDS and pressed them to write educational materials to the reading level and language habits of their target audiences. Less educated people (and a lot of more educated ones) do not usually talk about "pre-ejaculatory secretions" for example. And what a turn off that would be if they did! They are more likely to say "pre-cum". They thought that sort of word choice (pre-cum, cum, spit, shit...) was dumbing down the message. No, not dumbing down unless you are writing a pamphlet for the 3 or 4 whores with Public Health master or PhD degrees.

One of the keys to accessible writing is avoiding obscure words, especially obscure words derived from Latin and Greek. (See George Orwell on how a lot of latinate words are a clue that someone is lying). Another key is using relatively short sentences. "See Dick fuck Jane." is too short, but sentences running into several dozen words are too long, they are rather unwieldy, many people find them tiresome or irksome, and just because you don't know when, where, or why to insert periods and other terminating punctuation marks does not mean that other people are similarly handicapped, and they will judge you negatively--and wouldn't that be awful!



Anglo-saxon words and Middle English, which added a lot of everyday French words, will help you write clearly. J. R. R. Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in language that was about 90% Anglo-Saxon and some Middle English. Did you find his prose tiresome? Probably not.

Granted, Tolkien wasn't discussing Heidegger.

Too bad we don't got an emote for that. :D It was an annoying emote, anyways. — WiseMoron

It was my favourite, and I used it a lot. X-)

Is that a statement or a question? — Jeremiah

It's a "think about how ridiculous what you've done is" request where ideally I'm hoping you think about it and respond that you've seen the error of your ways.

That is some ego you have there.

Okay, discussion is dead, bye bye.

Oh, I know it's impressive.

"Nonetheless, these people that post on philosophical forums usually aren't as well disciplined as actual philosophers of academics." - WiseMoron

Academics, in every field, like to think a few college courses makes them a great writer; but the question of how much higher education contributes to the development of writing is not an easy one to answer. In many ways it is restrictive to the natural flow of language and the development of language skills.

If students pursue writing beyond just the basic required classes, I might agree. As higher level classes get a bit more in depth as to what constitutes as good writing. However, generally the core requirements are there to teach a students the "proper" grammar of standard formats; and that is about it. They don't really go into what makes good writing; instead core classes are there to teach students how to sound like everyone else so they can get a job.

When it comes to writing, pleading academics to me will not be likely to convince me. I am very critical of the way higher education teaches writing, as in many ways it actually impedes the development of good writing. In essence what they do, is teach everyone how to sound the same.

What I see, are people who are trying to create a separation between college educated philosophers and non-college educated philosophers. Perhaps there should be a thread about the significance of such a distinction.

Even though philosophy is my passion, there is a good reason I didn't pick it as a major, or even a minor. I honestly don't believe college is needed to teach philosophy, and I thought it would be more beneficial to my philosophy to focus on language and math. I believe those two to be the main tools of thought and reason.

So that might make a worthwhile thread; however, I get the feeling some people want to divide it into tiers of philosophers rather than a serious inquiry.

I honestly don't believe college is needed to teach philosophy... — Jeremiah

It isn't. College isn't needed to teach (or learn) anything.

Here's a bit more of a practical answer: it has nothing to do with "sounding" smart but rather because we are told/taught that we have to publish and publication does - in fact - matter for career prospects. It's not fun to write like Kant - seriously man, it sucks. You think academic philosophers get off on writing things like "being-in-itself" all the time? Hell no. But the problem is you need to publish in well respected (high impact) journals and that means using the vernacular of the field. Your average academic is going to tell you that they'd prefer to write like a normal person, but unfortunately you aren't going to get your writing into a top-tier journal with language that isn't commonly used within the field or, at least, doesn't address field-specific problems that usually hinge on certain types of vernacular.

The other problem is that, quite honestly, there are complex things to say and we rapidly run out of words to say them. Try explaining the "aufheben" in simple English. It just doesn't work well and you're going to end up with multiple sentences whereas you could just write one word and be done with it. So from that perspective it's a space and time saver. No author of a logic text book wants to explain the word "predicate" - it's obnoxious to do so. Hence you spend four to six pages explaining the term in your intro and then you just throw it around as short-hand when ever you need to later.

As far as college being needed to "teach" philosophy. Depends. I mean sure, you can read all the books you want but at a certain point in time you're going to be behind the material because most new things are being published in journals and academics are constantly communicating with one another outside of books... so if you're not part of the discussion it's awfully hard to stay current. If you're looking to teach academically or teach more specific topics (e.g. contemporary business ethics) best of luck doing so without spending a lot of time college.

But right there is your division between academic and non-academic philosophers - for the former it's a job, you're paid to publish and be on the "cutting edge" of where the research is currently at in your field. For the non-academic, who cares about any that? The issue comes about when once tries to cross over into the other domain. Non-academics trying to be academics pisses off academics. Why? Well because we've spent a lot of time working on very specific things, we're well aware of a lot of the literature, and we're working on things the average non-academic will never think about or notice because that's how we get paid. For the academic trying to cross over into non-academia... eh well, they tend to come off pompous, get labelled know-it-alls, and usually bring a harsh level of criticism that is far to hostile for non-academic discussion.

All that happens in-part because of a different epistemological upbringing. The non-academic sees philosophy as something fun, self-referential, and often times appealing to those looking to "find themselves". Your average academic sees philosophy as fun in the sense that if they do it well they'll get recognition and a potential promotion.