Why do some claim that philosophical writing should be clear?
In mathematics a proof is judged to be correct according to the axioms of the mathematical systems which it presupposes. i.e. Mathematical systems tell the user what operations and what sequences of operations are correct or true so a sequence of claims and arguments and operations can be judged to be true or false without doubt after a proper analysis.
But in many philosophical arguments and writings the goal is often to make the reader think of a completely new idea or even a new mode of thinking.
Lets say that in the future we will have a new mode of thinking and new concepts.
How do we get from not having them to having them? It starts with intuitions which try to convey something, a thought, a concept a way of thinking, that is not available yet. that readers do not know about and cannot fathom.
In philosophical writings new modes of thinking and perceiving reality can be conveyed through means that can only be understood as appropriate once you try to understand them intuitively. You start reading something and it seems unclear, ill defined allegorical, obfuscating but, if you read on, finish reading and try to make sense of it, through this process you suddenly become aware of a new mode of thinking and after that, in retrospect you see how what you read was not dumb or obfuscating but necessary to make you understand this new mode of thinking.
bcos their r stupod
>>29683486
how could you understand if the text is bad/the reader is stupid.
The ladder aplies to me.
>>29683486
I really like seeing girls doing regular things while naked, especially when sitting down.
>>29683605
>The ladder aplies to me.
>>29683486
Out of curiosity Donny, what philosophers are you interested in?
You're right, but you're still an annoying tripfag.
>>29683605 >>29683643
Kek
Feels like I'm reading Hegel or Wittgenstein again
>>29683639
I too find this sexy. Girls doing mundane things but with sex involved. Like just casually sucking dicks.
>>29683658
Let me deliberate this for a bit and get back to you
>>29683805
No problem. Sartre is fine too.
>>29683486
would you consider the right one fat?
Philosophical writing should be clear, because else its a just a bad writer. The philosophy might be good, but if they cant convey their ideas, I might just read someone who can.
Emmanuel Kant is super tedious to read, but its well written. He use complex structure in his text, but its well written.
Now some jackass who have a hard time expressing himself should work on his writing skill.
>>29683658
I am currently immersing myself in the works of:
Henri Bergson
Luigi Pirandello
And the ideas of:
epiphenomenalism
accidentalism
causal closure
antireductionism
deconstructionism
solipsism
Zizek is a retard
>>29683486
Huh sauce on gif?
>>29684096
tacwolf
>>29683486
>Why do some claim that philosophical writing should be clear?
Because it makes things easier for everyone, especially if one is to answer to it.Trying to understand something which is unclear will lead inevitably to everyone having his own opinion of what CIA meant when he said "you're a big guy".
Seriously, clarity should be considered the aesthetic criteria of philosophy. I'm not saying it should be written like a logic language, but the clearer the better.
>>29684082
Yes
Read more my friend
Expand your mind to the greatness of the world
One day you will become pure light!
Pure energy!
You will be the Supreme Enlightened, the Illuminated One.
>>29684202
You're gonna burn, all right...
First off: Clear arguments =/= simple arguments.
If your method of conveying your ideas is too obscure, then your idea won't come across. The more complex/difficult the idea, the more you have to dumb it down to people who have yet to comprehend it. This is even more true for commoners who are unfamiliar with the theoretic framework of your idea.
Ever read Plato? Plato dissects complex philosophical questions and explains them in terms of horses, fishing, bartering, shepherding and terms that commoners in Athene could comprehend (or should have been able to comprehend...) regardless of literacy.
>>29684385
You see, you can ask to a certain extent whether all posts on 4chan can be considered valuable information that should be analyzed.
Your statement is also indicative of certain things and can be interesting to think about.
This is where authority and persuasion come into play.
How does an author make sure his good ideas are explored?
For a philosopher it means getting a proper philosophical education with credentials so he is taken seriously by other philosophers and so they even look at what he writes.
Then there is also the way in which he writes that can either be engaging or not.
Here comes the question of what makes a text have the potential for interesting and fruitful interpretations?
>>29684510
I think pedagogic theory can be of use here. I'm too tired to get into the details, but I recommend using the principle "from the known to the unknown"; assimilating new information by relating it to the subject's current knowledge. You would teach Kant differently to 10th graders than you would to university students.
>>29683639
I fucked a girl when she was on my bed playing Super Mario on Nintendo DS. She kept playing for a while but she became wetter and wetter and started playing like shit and loosing, then she put the DS away
It was fucking hot
>>29683486
They claim this, tripfag, because it is wrong to assume as an author that your reader will somehow have the exact same conception of things as you. The point in philosophical writing is to bring a reader to that conception through logical argument.
>Lets say that in the future we will have a new mode of thinking and new concepts.
>How do we get from not having them to having them? It starts with intuitions which try to convey something, a thought, a concept a way of thinking, that is not available yet. that readers do not know about and cannot fathom.
Congrats on discovering Plato's problem of knowledge. New thought actually is available and is achieved through a reconfiguration of ideas. The fact that those ideas exist in the first place is kind of a mystery, hence why Plato said that the Idea is eternal and so is the soul. You should look into "emergence".
>[...] in retrospect you see how what you read was not dumb or obfuscating but necessary to make you understand this new mode of thinking.
The problem with what you're saying is that this new mode of thinking requires successful transmission. The problem with "obfuscatory" texts is that they don't successfully transmit anything conceptual, not even to the sharpest, most well-read minds, except for maybe a feeling-- usually a feeling of disgust, because smart people are aware of how charlatans can make deliberately unclear statements. Idiots proceed to call these unclear statements "intellectually stimulating".
It is easy in philosophy for authors to be sphinxes without secrets. This is rampant in academia and it is a problem because it poisons the minds of humanities students.
>>29683726
>>29683639
It's reddit but..
https://reddit.com/r/boredandignored
>>29684510
>How does an author make sure his good ideas are explored?
>For a philosopher it means getting a proper philosophical education with credentials so he is taken seriously by other philosophers and so they even look at what he writes.
This is a big issue in the world today. Getting a degree in philosophy doesn't mean that you're a philosopher-- it means that you are either a historian or a logician, nothing more. To me the title of philosopher implies original wisdom, otherwise anybody who writes anything can be called a philosopher. Academia discourages original philosophizing in favor of apple-polishing up and pandering down. Most of the time academic """philosophers""" are using different words to say the exact same things as their colleagues, which is why academic philosophy is so easily divided into "schools of thought", camps, bandwagons. The leader of the bandwagon is the famous professor who gives a "talk" on campus and everybody shows up to lick their boots. It is truly disgusting.
>>29685296
> it means that you are either a historian or a logician
That fits perfectly.
It's not socially acceptable to say this, though. "Philosopher" is someone who has a degree in Philosophy from some college, because university is the ultimate authority.
My experience with philosophy so far is that it's not usually worth the effort. Unlike scientists, the philosopher's primary concern doesn't appear to be the acquisition and transmission of knowledge, but instead to fellate other philosophers and make the subject as elitist as fucking possible.
The philosopher's education doesn't begin with logic or Plato, it begins with pedantic interjections that derail class discussion, which he does with a great smirk. He was a grammarian and a stickler, frustrating everybody around him then feigning ignorance when others told him he wasn't being clever, he was being an annoying little shit and everybody knew what the offending person had said in spite of their error.
Then, discovering he can dismantle arguments without troubling himself with mathematics, statistics or researching for empirical evidence, he continues on his merry way until he finds there's a class of people every bit as pretentious as he is, and who have arguments so impractical the average person probably hasn't bothered considering not because it's "too hard", but because it's so useless to them. But the young philosopher mistakes this for his intellectual superiority over them, and condescendingly brings up these new ideas whenever he fucking can, and when somebody asks him to explain he again smirks and directs them to a number of books totally up to 1000 pages just to clarify his snide addition to a conversation that could have done entirely without it.
By the time he's caught the attention of more practically minded intellectuals, he's so entrenched in philosophy that he can weasel out of anything by questioning the reliability of empiricism, the problem of knowledge, or existentialism. He's got hundreds of terms and phrases to excuse his obnoxious and odious commentary when told to fuck off, because really the philosopher is entirely unwelcome when it's anything practical or enjoyable, because he is a professional pain in the ass.
>>29685825
t. meletusMeletus was the fag who accused Socrates for corrupting the minds of youth, resulting in Socrates' execution. But of course, this is common knowledge.
>>29685825
Great read, 100% my experience/though with philo major.
Its a worthless degree that will make you insufferable in conversation. It doesnt have any job prospect beside teaching philo.
The best philosopher have a math/logic background.
This is why nobody but philosophers takes philosophy seriously. It's vague brainwank that gets nothing done.
One should keep in mind that often philosophers aren't really writing thinking of plebs, they are just writing freely, they aren't doing it for charity or necessarily expecting you to give a fuck about it anyway. We give a fuck about it because more often than not some of them happen to have something interesting to say anyway.
what a shti thread
tell me the sauce and fuck off
source of video pls
>>29683605
>ladder
still need source for the webm
>>29686499
Tacwolf on chaturbate
