There's nothing wrong with writing a story and including captivation/entertainment in your work. It shows how the writer reached his or her conclusions or views and perhaps where they may have erred or glossed over pertinent and related ideas or criticisms. The chronically impatient have little use or business in philosophy, IMO, despite needing it the most.

It's relatively easy to pry open the eyes and beget further inquisition and engagement to a person half-asleep with even the faintest of light. Reminds me of a quote I read in fiction: "Many a warrior follow the path of the dragon. Perhaps such warriors are attracted to doctrines of few words."

I, and I'm sure many others, don't mind, even prefer, going on a lengthy and unyielding journey into a great mind (provided one has the time and will to do so, of course). Besides, you can find summaries and outlines online or as study notes in most lectures.

@Outlander. You misunderstand me a little.

Both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer write stories,use entertainment/comedy and especially saliently,use real life examples of psychology to illustrate their ideas.

I see many people who like Kant or Hegel because it's a badge of honour to have read their supposedly difficult books. But basically they are bad writers!

Thank you for the welcome and praise outlander!

But basically they are bad writers! — Swanty

Well, show the world how it's done then, champ. If you purport to know what is bad, creating what is therefore "good" should be a cake walk. Let us know when it's done, eh? There's a short story competition coming up I believe. Knock it out of the park. :up:

@Outlander. I like it! But are my posts not enough???!
What do you think of novelists as philosophers and good writers? Eg Poe, Dostoevsky,shakespeare,Stinberg etc.
My point is novelists and playwrights are sometimes great and concise philosophers.
Even better than the real thing!!!

Amongst philosophers I appreciate brevity,clarity and power...

So what is your opinion,are dialectical or enycopediac philosophers suspect,and guilty of Apologetics? — Swanty

I also value clarity, but I'm more interested in the quality of the ideas. Just because the lights better, it doesn't mean it's where you lost your keys. I hope you are familiar with that joke.

@T clark Yes,I like the joke!
I hear and agree with you,a writer can be clear but lack truth and depth.
But the guys I'm talking about had good ideas and were concise clear writers as well. That's the general point I'm making.

But the guys I'm talking about had good ideas and were concise clear writers as well. — Swanty

I value clarity and brevity also. It's what I aim for in my own writing.

I forgot to say - welcome to the forum.

Also, a suggestion. If you highlight the text you are referring to and then push the "quote" button that pops up, the text and a link will be copied direct to your response.

@T clark
Im glad to hear you value clarity and brevity,and aspire to it.

Thank you for the welcome!

You musta read my mind,I'm still tryna figure out how to quote etc!

So what is your opinion,are dialectical or enycopediac philosophers suspect,and guilty of Apologetics? — Swanty

Ancient philosophy was mainly story-telling & myth-making : what we now call Religion. But modern philosophy --- since the Enlightenment's rational-turn --- has become an amalgamation of abstract reasoning (logic) and metaphorical story-telling (meaning). You can take your pick of various writing styles on this forum. But it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:

@Gnomon
Actually,I really like that analysis.
I prefer the poetic,religious mythical/metaphorical type of reasoning. Even the anecdotal! But still compressed in general.

Plato is a funny one. He writes sometimes religiously,and other times like a condensed Hegel! Yet he hates poets for their supposedly subversive character. (Truthful=subversive!)

it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:

@Gnomon. And this is the point I want to explore. Is there a relation between writing style and worldview/Apologetics?

To elucidate,,,,,politicians when they don't believe what they are saying, overtalk,obfuscate and divert from obvious truths. Is anybody brave enough to say this of Hegel and Kant etc al???

And just to clarify. I don't mean long winded philosophers can't have great ideas. I mean Husserl has truly great ideas,but writes like a doofus.

Ancient philosophy was mainly story-telling & myth-making : what we now call Religion. But modern philosophy --- since the Enlightenment's rational-turn --- has become an amalgamation of abstract reasoning (logic) and metaphorical story-telling (meaning). — Gnomon

Aristotle, Plato, Lao Tzu, and Epicurus were "mainly story-telling & myth-making?"

@T clark Lao Tszu is poetry and mythmaking.

Aristotle is very analytical and abstract. But he has his moments.

Plato utilised poetry,myth making,story telling and abstract thought. He is religious.

I thought Epicurus was just fragments but I could be wrong?

Nietzsche once wrote that bad writers write ALL their thoughts rather than just the final "percolated" product.[/quote]

Not coming from a background in the subject, I find most philosophical writing either dull or incomprehensible. That's mainly on me. Wish I could do better.

I find Nietzsche fairly unreadable too - having read 4 of his works and unable to get much from them.

Hume and Schopenhauer are readable. But I don't associate readability with highest quality. That argument sounds a bit like Orwell's famous polemical essay about politics and language.

I'm suspicious of long winded writers,it's like a long list of apologies and overwrought justifications,showing how the writer is unsure of his ideas! — Swanty

There's a significant prejudice ageist writers we find difficult as we tend to assume the fault lies with them, not our abilities to comprehend.

I think John Searle quotes Foucault about Derrida's writing as a type of 'obscurantist terrorism'. The idea being that some French post structuralists wrote deliberately complex language to appear profound. This has become a worn trope and gives us an excuse not to try to understand.

But my quesion is this: how do we tell apart the complex prose that is insightful, from that which is empty bluster? All we can really do is read and provide assessments based on some other criterion of value. I don't know how tenable it is to dismiss a writer just because of baroque or highly technical language.

@Tom Storm
Hume,schop and bishop Berkley I found as very clear writers. ( Ditto Orwell!)

I do get that some might not get much from Nietzsche because of his exaggeration and polemical style,which may be off putting. But he is concise and reasonably clear,especially his works from 1886 to 1888. I always found him very worthwhile because of his psychology of religion and politics.

I agree with Foucault about Derrida,but foucault also writes badly,Ditto Husserl. But all 3 have great insights.

The insight needed is ones Intuition. I persevered with some of the waffle show off types by reading their main ideas and ignoring their justifications and long winded explanations.

I think the phrase obscurantist terrorism is indeed true,like politicians or priests trying to appear profound. And because of this I exercise my discretion.One has to believe in oneself! It's often the writer not the reader who is at fault. We don't need to defer because of reputation.

I think the phrase obscurantist terrorism is indeed true,like politicians or priests trying to appear profound. And because of this I exercise my discretion.One has to believe in oneself! It's often the writer not the reader who is at fault. We don't need to defer because of reputation. — Swanty

Unpacking this I would say that we still need to identify what counts as merit and the issue of complexity (baroque prose) in itself can't be grounds for dismissal. Nor can a subjective trust in one's personal 'bullshit detector'.

I certainly read based on my personal reactions and taste, but I don't confuse this with an objective assessment about the work I privilege or detract. Thoughts?

it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:

@Gnomon. And this is the point I want to explore. Is there a relation between writing style and worldview/Apologetics?

To elucidate,,,,,politicians when they don't believe what they are saying, overtalk,obfuscate and divert from obvious truths. Is anybody brave enough to say this of Hegel and Kant etc al??? — Swanty

Sorry, I'm not qualified to offer an opinion. I have no formal training in philosophy, and I've never read any Kant or Hegel, except in Wikipedia and popular books. There are others on the forum who might chime in. :smile:

PS___ I did try to read Foucault years ago. But his run-on sentences, some a hundred words long, left me wondering "what . . . . ?".

@Tom Storm
Baroque prose is not itself ground for supposing that a writer does not have great ideas. Kant and Hegel are both great for drawing attention to several great phenomenonological insights.

Foucault has brilliant insights in power discourse,but his writing is boring and factually wrong at times.

I don't seperate objective from subjective,I'm eastern!!! My half joke!

@Gnomon
PS___ I did try to read Foucault years ago. But his run-on sentences, some a hundred words long, left me wondering "what . . . . ?".

Exactly! But foucault ideas about power narratives in politics are extremely good. So I think the commentaries and summaries on his ideas are better than his actual writing!

But I appreciate your straightforwardness in saying you don't feel you can comment.

Addendum, Plato can be really clear and poetic,and then really abstract in some dialogues! And I feel that is deliberate.

Aristotle, Plato, Lao Tzu, and Epicurus were "mainly story-telling & myth-making?" — T Clark

I did not mean that characterization to be derogatory, but merely descriptive. As I said above, I have no formal education in Philosophy, and my background is more in Science. So, the layman's opinion you are questioning covers several thousand years of philosophizing. It's just my general impression of a gradual trend from mytho-poetic Hindu, Chinese, Pre-Socratic-Greek and Hebrew wisdom literature, to modern analytical & science-based philosophizing. Nietzsche may be a throwback to the mythopoetic style in his Also Sprach Zarathustra.

Does the Lao Tse excerpt below sound more like ancient mythical poetry or like modern analytical philosophy to you? I could say that Plato & Aristotle were transitional, but the change from Classical to Modern took 2000 years, with a side-track into doctrinal Theology. Do you see the trend in Writing Styles I was referring to? :smile:

What was Lao Tzu's philosophy? :
He advocated a deep, connective empathy between people as the means to peace and harmony and claimed that such empathy was possible through recognition of the cosmic force of the Tao which had created all things, bound all things, moved all things, and finally loosed all things back into their original state.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Lao-Tzu/

Tao te Ching
The Way - cannot be told.
The Name - cannot be named.
The nameless is the Way of Heaven and Earth.
The named is Matrix of the Myriad Creatures.
Eliminate desire to find the Way.
Embrace desire to know the Creature.
The two are identical,
But differ in name as they arise.
Identical they are called mysterious,
Mystery on mystery,
The gate of many secrets.
https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Chinese/TaoTeChing.php#anchor_Toc42848702

I find it bizarre that you equate Hegel with Kant OR Schopenhauer with Nietzsche.

It would make more sense to compare Kant with Schopenhauer and Hegel with Nietzsche (in terms of writing style).

I'm suspicious of long winded writers,it's like a long list of apologies and overwrought justifications,showing how the writer is unsure of his ideas! — Swanty

You should take into account the time it was written in as well as the intended audience. Kant wrote COPR for fellow philosophers of the time rather than for general public consumption.

Example:

Addendum, Plato can be really clear and poetic,and then really abstract in some dialogues! And I feel that is deliberate. — Swanty

This was written 2500 yrs ago, in a world we cannot really fully comprehend, in an alien culture and in a now dead language.

@I like sushi

It would make more sense to compare Kant with Schopenhauer and Hegel with Nietzsche (in terms of writing style).

Are you serious?? In terms of writing style schop and Nietzsche both write similarly aphoristically and with a lot of polemic.

As for the intended audience or how old the writing,it matters not if it can be read in English.

Communication is timeless.

Are you serious?? In terms of writing style schop and Nietzsche both write similarly aphoristically and with a lot of polemic. — Swanty

Deadly. I see what you mean I guess. Just do not agree overall.

Both Kant and Hegel were attempting to be as accurate as possible. It makes their work hard to read. Plus, they were both writing for fellow philosophers they were not writing novels.

Nietzsche and Schopenhauer share a bombastic tone.

I would argue that both Kant and Schopenhauer are far more practical and systematic in their approaches and have a pattern of thought and thinking that can be reasonably well mapped out. Hegel and Nietzsche on the other hand tend to use more obscure approaches, with Hegel offering up complex and highly intricate abstractions where Nietzsche opts for a text laden with metaphors and aphorisms that have repeatedly been misconstrued from one generation to the next due to the contrary and dense nature in which he writes.

If anything they are more different from each other than alike. The relationship between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is simply due to being interested in a similar area of human life at a similar period in history. Other than bombast I see nothing similar in writing styles.

As for the intended audience or how old the writing,it matters not if it can be read in English. — Swanty

You really should take into account the culture of writing at the time written and who was meant to read it. For example, Plato only a century or two after the Sophists whom were the first to start writing outside of poetry and first started departing from mythological metaphors. Then there is the issue of translation (mistranslation) alongside the bias of appropriating modern cultural norms on those who lived two and a half millennia ago.

Communication is timeless. — Swanty

This is not an argument. This is an empty statement that persuades no one other than yourself or whoever reads into it what they wish to be true - which is part of my point about subjectivity in reading texts.

@I like sushi

Your just repeating your posts.

Communication is timeless.
Subjectivity is Truth. (Well,for some!) To quote Kieerkegard.

Your posts are proof that academic type philosophers overcomplicate matters. with uneccessary historical details or caveats that sometimes don't add anything but unclarity and long winded diversions. And that is exactly what my thread is about.

Bye for now.

I have a rule when someone talks what I consider to be complete nonsense OR is just out to provoke and ignore what is said. You will get no reply from me for 2 months (if you last that long on this forum).

Have fun! Hope you reign in your tone before they kick you out :)

@I like sushi
Only the brave my sensitive friend!

I like brevity and clarity, but not all writers want to be brief and clear, and that is their prerogative. It does not necessarily mean they are confused or uncertain. And uncertainty is perhaps a virtue rather than a vice in speculative investigations. Even a pretence of uncertainty helps engender productive dialogue. Sometimes brevity can go too far, ending up where there is simply not enough information to discern meaning unambiguously - many of @180 Proof's unfortunately end up like that, but maybe that is his intention. Occasionally 180 writes in a longer more conversational style and when he does so he is a superb writer. There are lots of economical and clear writers on the forum who get the balance right (or at least to my taste).

@bert1

I remember reading one of bishop Berkleys Q&A type platonic style dialogues and that was very clear.
But he was using "uncertainty" and "speculation" as a rhethorical way to explain his thinking. As long as it's clear that's fine.

Oscar Wilde wrote some essays like platonic dialogues,and those are brilliant &clear

I have read 180, and I agree that he's unclear. But a lot of that is his jargon laden style and his weird grammatically abbreviated sentences.

I do love the conversational style of writing.

But weird abbreviations,jargon or long windedness is a sin against communication!