Well, your way leads exactly nowhere. You've got neither clarification nor obfuscation.

What I am advocating is called argument. When someone says something, if it doesn't make sense you can ask for clarification. Been that way since at least Socrates.

It's What We Do.

Supposing otherwise undermines the process in which we are engaged.

So yeah, my way is the right way. But it's not just me who says it is the right way.

So what it comes down to is, if you think philosophy is not about conceptual clarification, then it is up to you to present an account of philosophy that does involve conceptual clarification.

That is, it is over to you to clarify your concept of philosophy.

Good luck.

To me the interesting bit is: what are you trying to achieve with your writing? Popper was trying to solve problems and teach their proposed resolution in the clearest way possible because he expected interesting arguments in return, in a productive dialogue rather than more wasteful misunderstanding. Others may rather try to explore a subject without searching for resolution. The task not being the same, the language can (must?) then be more poetic than technical.

1. Many philosophies that are deemed obscure or unreadable are written in an unfamiliar place and time. To truly understand Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, you would have to live in ancient Greece (unless you're a scholar). — Wheatley

So drop the "truely"; it does nothing, anyway. Or if you prefer, drop "understand" and try realising that there is no one way to read any text.

2. It could simply be a translation issue. Works written in German such as Kant and Hegel are much more difficult to understand in English than German. — Wheatley

Then get a better translator. The request for clarification remains cogent.

3. You never really tried (intellectual laziness). It's much easier to dismiss something by claiming you don't understand it. You don't actually accomplish anything, but hey, at least you don't have to debate. — Wheatley

It's also easy to dismiss failure to write clearly as a failure on the part of the reader.

4. Lack of Knowledge. — Wheatley

Then the clarification is the additional knowledge needed to follow the argument. Hence the need for SEP.

Again, your point is clear; requesting clarification can be used as a rhetorical tool. But the alternative strikes me as far worse; allowing nonsense to propagate.

Well, your way leads exactly nowhere. You've got neither clarification nor obfuscation. — Banno

I like to leave philosophy open and creative. Having predispositions on the proper way to do philosophy, such as demanding clarity all the time, is very constraining.

I like to leave philosophy open and creative. — Wheatley

That's poetry.

Wrong forum.

So what it comes down to is, if you think philosophy is not about conceptual clarification, then it is up to you to present an account of philosophy that does involve conceptual clarification. — Banno

It has already been done! I like the Britannica article on philosophy Link. Analytic philosophy (which you seem to be advocating) is merely a modern construct.

there is no one way to read any text. — Banno

I'm against this proposition. Suppose the author of a text intended you to understand it a particular way. I like to read something the way it was intended to be read.

Then get a better translator. The request for clarification remains cogent. — Banno

Different languages have a different feel to it. Even if you get a good translation, you can still misunderstand the author.

It's also easy to dismiss failure to write clearly as a failure on the part of the reader. — Banno

That's true. :lol:

But the alternative strikes me as far worse; allowing nonsense to propagate. — Banno

Have you successfully stopped nonsense from propagating? If so, my hat is off to you.

What I am advocating is called argument. When someone says something, if it doesn't make sense you can ask for clarification. Been that way since at least Socrates.

It's What We Do.

Supposing otherwise undermines the process in which we are engaged.

So yeah, my way is the right way. But it's not just me who says it is the right way. — Banno

I'll say this: Your way of describing philosophy can be very useful for communication on the Philosophy Forum, but there's no god-like figure that can decree that this way is the correct way of doing philosophy.

Philosophy must be concise but by no means must it be straightforward. Intellectuals are not drones who speak in one way, they are multi-linguists, per se.

See the connotation between conciseness and intellectuals.

If what you prepare to say or what you theorise, is concise, you can be intellectual, almost automatically. You cannot reduce conciseness to simplicity in communication. The more clear it is the better, but by no means is clarity straightforward, you may not be able to word correctly something that can be made clear through metaphor, and then poets claim to misunderstand and you are deemed obscure.

Forgive me for bringing up the Winged Propeller shape which is an active shape like a tesseract.

It has two symmetrical propellers at the back of a 'klein bottle' connected front chassis on which a sentient (capable of roaming and judging passively) intelligence is created in its global center, through the harmonious swirling power generated by the torque of propellers and the front layer that simulates aerodynamicity.

Seems like jibberish - then you are not looking at conciseness, you are a non intellectual on shape or lesser than me, or you're thinking perversely.

First judge if my description of the Winged Propeller shape is concise, perhaps engage with debate. It seems there are no debates on this forum, just competitive discussion.

That's poetry.

Wrong forum. — Banno

It's not poetry if you include critical reasoning.

...the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

So you can do this without conceptual clarification?

How will you be able to tell?

Different languages have a different feel to it. — Wheatley

The same language has a different feel to it. These are not just issues of translation from French or German.

It's not poetry if you include critical reasoning. — Wheatley

Why... because you say so? Why can't @PoeticUniverse write critical poetry?

So you can do this without conceptual clarification? — Banno

What do you mean "do this without conceptual clarification"? That's just a general outline of philosophy, there are many kinds of philosophy, not all of them involve conceptual analysis.

Are you looking for a definition?

The same language has a different feel to it. These are not just issues of translation from French or German. — Banno

Yeah, but it's even more unfamiliar when it comes from a foreign language.

Why... because you say so? Why can't PoeticUniverse write critical poetry? — Banno

Non-poetic creative philosophy. Happy?

I a lot folks dismiss ideas because they claim it lacks "clarity". The assumption seems to be that if an idea, or concept, is not easily comprehended it is therefore dishonest. There are some issues with this line of thinking. — Wheatley

Many people think in black-and-white terms. They are not interested in understanding things, but in taking sides. So even when they read a (would-be) philosophical text, they do so with an intention of taking sides. If it turns out that they can't do so easily (because they agree with some things in the text, while disagree with others, and some they don't understand), they take this as a cue to oppose the text/the author.

But the alternative strikes me as far worse; allowing nonsense to propagate. — Banno

Nonsense isn't like weeds, so that once you pull or dig it out, it would be gone for a least a while.

Nonsense is something far more systemic, complex, eluding direct action.

Nonsense isn't like weeds, so that once you pull or dig it out, it would be gone for a least a while. — baker

But in academic setting, test scores and criticism from professors are meant weed out the kinds of people who spout nonsense. (Perhaps not.)

Nonsense is something far more systemic, complex, eluding direct action. — baker

Yes, especially on the internet where anyone can spout nonsense and get away with it.

Many people think in black-and-white terms. They are not interested in understanding things, but in taking sides. So even when they read a (would-be) philosophical text, they do so with an intention of taking sides. If it turns out that they can't do so easily (because they agree with some things in the text, while disagree with others, and some they don't understand), they take this as a cue to oppose the text/the author. — baker

How do you deal with such people?

Seems like jibberish - then you are not looking at conciseness, you are a non intellectual on shape or lesser than me, or you're thinking perversely. — Varde

One problem with your description is that I don't have a strong ability to visualize complex objects. Clarity could be provided by an illustration.

What I am advocating is called argument. When someone says something, if it doesn't make sense you can ask for clarification. — Banno

Come on, Banno. Do you really claim that this is the way philosophy works here on the forum, or in philosophy in general, for that matter. Or for you, for that matter.

I can't draw it but it looks like a hovercraft. The front is the boat aspect, the back is just the propellors, and they link in a 'klein' manner.

If it is spawned at all it generates whirling power into it's global center and that contained power then judges automatically and roams, wherever the flow takes it.

. I was only speaking about prose style.

On the other hand, to your credit, you tend to express yourself quite clearly, not in the convoluted way Husserl did. You can say that that's because he was ahead of his time. Maybe.

But then there are people, like Zahavi, who do explain Husserl very clearly. — Manuel

I don’t think prose style can be separated from the content of one’s ideas. I can’t imagine Husserl
writing his phenomenology in any other way , without it changing the very substance of the work. Zahavi writes ‘clearly’ about Husserl. He is also a lightweight in comparison to Husserl who I think misses vital features of Husserl’s work.

I write in a certain way on this site in an attempt to co-ordinate with where I think others are at in their thinking. I write very differently when I am elaborating my own philosophical ideas without such constraints and compromises.

With regard to Russell vs Husserl, I also think the notion of clarity is connected with how one views the nature of facts and truth. Russell is old
school , holding onto what Wittgenstein called a picture theory of truth. Being clear for Russel thus meant presenting pictures to others as cleanly as possible. I but Husserl , like Wittgenstein , was ‘post-picture’ in his thinking. Truth becomes a constantly evolving self-referential process rather than directed toward pictorial representation. This is why Husserl considered himself
to be an eternal beginner, always on the road to full clarity but approaching it by endlessly starting over.

Reading through all the responses on this thread, it strikes me there are people who don't think a philosophical idea can be profound or important unless it is obscure or difficult. Maybe to them the effort required to figure something out is related to its value.

https://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_and_the_obscurantism_in_french_philosophy.html

In France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won’t think it’s deep–they won’t think you’re a profound thinker.”

Reading through all the responses on this thread, it strikes me there are people who don't think a philosophical idea can be profound or important unless it is obscure or difficult. Maybe to them the effort required to figure something out is related to its value. — T Clark

Well , profundity and importance tend to be synonymous with a certain notion of difficulty , dont they? When the light bulb goes on and there’s a ‘eureka’ moment, in that moment it all seems so easy, so effortless. But how often do such moments occur without long, hard preparation and struggle, reading the same sentences or formulas over and over without clarity? Most of the exciting concepts in science I learned ( Darwinism, Newtonian and relativistic physics) unfolded this way.

As far as obscurity is concerned, the word implies something hidden, veiled, unclear. For centuries , the obscure was the enemy of philosophy. It was the murky and deceptive veil of appearances that it was philosophy’s job to clear away. Philosophy’s handmaiden, the sciences , reinforced the idea that obscurity was the enemy of truth. But then scepticism began creeping in with Hume , and Kant’s attempt to salvage the old
verities forced him to let obscurity in via the unattainable thing-in-itself. This was still an obscurity beholden to and dominated by apodictic truth. The door to obscurity was opened wider with Hegel’s dialectic of becoming. Kant’s categorical and moral certainties could no longer justify themselves. But the path to scientific truth via falisification was opened up.

Obscurity only made its way into the heart of truth with the post-Hegelian relativisms of Rorty, Kuhn and Feyerabend, Wittgenstein,Nietzsche, the phenomenologists , the Pragmatists, the social constructionists and the postmodernists. If one is still
wedded to Kantian or Hegelian notions of truth, then reading the above works may lead to a different experience of obscurity. That is, they may
simply appear incoherent, inconsistent and deliberately obfuscating . One may never get to what they are trying to reveal and see only an inadequate style.

Zahavi writes ‘clearly’ about Husserl. He is also a lightweight in comparison to Husserl who I think misses vital features of Husserl’s work. — Joshs

You know much, much, much more about Husserl than me. I ask for a clear exposition of ideas, that can be done. It's another thing if you get technical and develop a description which is sophisticated, that's fine, it's a part of professional philosophy.



Russell was sympathetic to certain aspects of Wittgenstein's early work. But he is much broader and covers many more topics than Wittgenstein. Doesn't mean he's better for it, but that's a fact.

I can see why phenomenology is a work of constant renewal and why Husserl was constantly refining his ideas. That makes it interesting too. But I don't think the expressions he uses easies understanding. We'll have to disagree on that part.

But I don't think the expressions he uses easies understanding. We'll have to disagree on that part. — Manuel

I will say this about Husserl’s concepts. Many of his terms fly in the face of conventional understandings. For instance , his use of soul, spirit , ego, intention. As is the tendency among Continental philosophers, he dipped into older uses of such words , going back as far as the Greeks. We in the Anglo world prefer to work with the most contemporary and most narrowly technical uses of words in our philosophies. This often leads to trouble. The translation of Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams for American audiences wiped out all of the vital literary-philosophical context of terms like Ich and Esse and substituted narrowly psychological meanings( Ego and Id). It really distorted the overal character of the work

So you do have to learn essentially a new vocabulary with Husserl and Heidegger, but once you have done so, you may come to realize that it is actually a much richer use of concepts than the flat and narrow technicalization of them that we see in analytic writing.
Unlike the latter , it connects and integrates new concepts with an unbroken heritage of literature , philosophy and theology going back thousands of years .

Well , profundity and importance tend to be synonymous with a certain notion of difficulty , dont they? — Joshs

Absolutely, positively, completely, indubitably no.

Most of the exciting concepts in science I learned ( Darwinism, Newtonian and relativistic physics) unfolded this way. — Joshs

As I noted previously, science is different from philosophy, with the exception, I guess, of logic.

But then scepticism began creeping in with Hume , and Kant’s attempt to salvage the old verities forced him to let obscurity in via the unattainable thing-in-itself. — Joshs

I guess I see this as just the opposite. The idea of thing-in-itself is the ultimate simplification. It's the world with all the paint and glitter of language and reason stripped off. What could be less obscure. It's right there if you look. Just turn off the words that obscure it.

Obscurity only made its way into the heart of truth with the post-Hegelian relativisms of Rorty, Kuhn and Feyerabend, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, the phenomenologists , the Pragmatists, the social constructionists and the postmodernists. — Joshs

I can't speak to most of these, but it is absolutely not true of the pragmatists. How could an understanding of reality nailed down to concrete human behavior and understanding be obscure.