Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
2016-07-01 02:11:39 Post No. 8227216
[Report]
Image search:
[Google]
Anonymous
2016-07-01 02:11:39
Post No. 8227216
[Report]
>Nowhere is the hostility of the Anglo-American tradition toward the dialectical more apparent, however, than in the widespread notion that the style of these works is obscure and cumbersome, indigestible, abstract—or, to sum it all up in a convenient catchword, Germanic. It can be admitted that it does not conform to the canons of clear and fluid journalistic writing taught in the schools. But what if those ideals of clarity and simplicity have come to serve a very different ideological purpose, in our present context, from the one Descartes had in mind? What if, in this period of the overproduction of printed matter and the proliferation of methods of quick reading, they were intended to speed the reader across a sentence in such a way that he can salute a readymade idea effortlessly in passing, without suspecting that real thought demands a descent into the materiality of language and a consent to time itself in the form of the sentence? In the language of Adorno—perhaps the finest dialectical intelligence, the finest stylist, of them all—density is itself a conduct of intransigence: the bristling mass of abstractions and cross-references is precisely intended to be read in situation, against the cheap facility of what surrounds it, as a warning to the reader of the price he has to pay for genuine thinking.
When are you going to wake up to the fact that obscurantism is an ideological pseudo-idea constructed by bourgeois philosophers to suppress critical thinking and the necessarily dense form it must take if it is to say anything meaningful?
