>obscurantism
Why do STEMlords and fedora-tippers love this word?
It's really challenging to read some philosophers because they're often grasping at ideas and formulations that have not yet been formulated. The idiots who call them obscurantists are actually presupposing that they already know the foreign use of language that the philosopher is attempting, that they "get" the ideas, they just want it expressed already in their own language. It's conceited as fuck.
Hegel is God general.
>>334202
why? fuck whatever usenet user attributed that to nietzsche
In 1996, Alan Sokal, a physicist, grew tired of the "Science Wars". Postmodernists would throw out dribble about how scientific discovery was inherently racist, and mathematics was created by the bourgeoise to oppress women. Finally, "academics" called for the restraining of scientific discovery such that it fit with proper political doctrine. Similar to Lysenko in Soviet Russia, these "academics" could spew out dribble (Because that's all it was) faster than actual scientists and thinkers could put out factual analysis.
So Sokal published "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" in the Social Text, a publication put out by Duke University. Sokal sought to show that not only were the postmodernists academically bankrupt but also complete idiots. He claimed in the article that gravity itself was a social construct that was inherently sexist and created solely to oppress women. Initially, Social Text found his lack of "proper homage to established academics" to be a deal breaker. So he threw in some quotes by Marx and Lacan and Foucalt and Dworkin and it was promptly accepted.
Keep in mind that this is a completely garbage article.
Sokal then spread the word high and low about how not only did Social Text not use peer review but also didn't even bring in someone with an understanding of physics to look at the paper.
In honor of him, people eventually coded "Sokal Generators", programs which pick through a list of given sources and cobble together some bizarre form of post modern analysis. It's all complete gibberish. It's fun to post these to Left wing/liberal/progressive/post modernist websites and watch them argue for or against something that is 100% twaddle made by a computer.
When something becomes so clouded that "experts" cannot tell the difference between real analysis and computer generated mockery then you aren't gaining knowledge, you're roleplaying an academic.
>>334311
Yes we know about this. And you know what. I've actually read a book by the guy that published it and he specifically says the publicity stunt should not be used to discredit philosophy as a whole or even discredited post-modernism as a whole.
But you not only fail to understand the point of the stunt you got extra stupid and think this retroactively invalidates Hegel, a man who was 100 years before Post-modernism even existed as a word.
STEMfags are fucking retarded.
>>334329
>computers can create false papers so convincing it fools experts
>doesn't discredit the philosophy in question
did you even read his post m8?
>>334192
It's a logical positivist posture.
>A sentence is only meaningful if it's empirically verifiable.
There goes half of human affairs. No wonder this shit died.
>>334192
>often grasping at ideas and formulations that have not yet been formulated.
Like?
>>334342
I've read the fucking BOOK by Alan Sokal about it.
Argueing that the stunt descrits philosophy is like saying that if I find one shady physics general and post a fake essay that gets accepted it means all physists everywhere are wrong.
In the book Alan Sokal takes great care to explain exactly what who in the field and what part of their ideas were hurt. He goes out of his way to avoid attacking post-modern ideas that he feels are not relevant.
This is how an actual scientist thinks. He recognizes that just because you falsify one aspect of something doesn't mean the whole thing is wrong. You are not thinking like a scientist or a philosopher you are thinking like an idiot.
I actually read post post modern philosophy and I've read Alan Sokal. I actually agree with the main points from Alan there are points in post-modernism where people said silly things but that doesn't invalidate that we have genius's in the field some of them which are very important to other fields.
And Hume isn't even a post modernist. You are 100 years off. Fucking retard you are making both the scientific and the philosophical community WORST with your stupidity.
There are people that try to hide their lack of content by using obscure language.
And there are people that write gibberish. Derrida is thr biggest and most famous example.
>>334346
For Hegel?
> Spirit cannot come to be without first a self-consciousness recognizing another self-consciousness
> Master-Slave Dialect
> History of Philosophy and Historical reading
> Aufheben
> Geist
> Modern understanding of civil society
Also in Hegel's works we find the seeds of modern nationalism, anarchism, Marxism, fascism and psychoanalysis.
If you want to pick a philosopher who did not bring anything new to the field, don't go for Hegel. There's a reason why Foucalt feared that no matter where our thinking would take us, we would face Hegel's ghost.
>>334374
kys
>>334311
2nd post and already mention of sokal. Fucking lol. Stemfags will never get over this.
>>334311
Sokal only got published because of his university standing, he basically abused his PhD and published in a non-peer-reviewed paper
>>334654
So he's actually closer to a fraud himself....
>>334346
Hegel spends a shitload of time restating things because he's trying to flesh out his words with loads of nuance and connotative impact, you can't read a shortened version and get the same understanding. It just doesn't happen.
"Muh obscurantism" fags thing they can take complex ideas and pack them into words they already know and get the same understanding. You can't really do that, the nuance in arguments is important.
>>334656
Basically, yes. I mean, to caveat, he's not entirely wrong and I don't think Sokal is personally so bad but he's a little too cocky and the people who cite that paper are fucking horrible.
>>334656
It's almost as bad as those people who misquote that paper "Einstein's relativity is a masculine equation"
>>334701
What's the actual meaning behind it than? Does it actually say something clever?
>>334717
Last I checked, nobody could actually find the quote because it literally doesn't exist.
>>334192
>>334192
Because its a tool used by the ideologues you run into at university.
Two forms of stupidity:
1. Disregarding an idea because it seems obscure
2. Worshipping an idea because it seems obscure
>>334681
It's also because Hegel was just a terrible writer all around. Even when he's writing something straightforward, he's nearly impossible to read. And it's not like he's abusing vocabulary or language or anything, he just has such a roundabout way of constructing sentences.
>>336318
This. Also many people are reading Hegel in translation, which adds another layer. German prose often translates horribly into English at the best of times, let alone metaphysics.
Relevant:
https://autio.github.io/projects/scienceoflogic/
