Should philosophy be easy to understand? | Page 4 | INFJ Forum

Should philosophy be easy to understand?

On a somewhat more serious note, still speaking of rivers, here's (again) one of the most awesome philosophical aphorisms ever.

river-quotes-1.jpg
 
On a somewhat more serious note, still speaking of rivers, here's (again) one of the most awesome philosophical aphorisms ever.

river-quotes-1.jpg

Too bad whoever designed this wasn't being awesome

5125fd8ee83c8aefd84d9cb15c0c3a1e--gamer-meme-pc-gamer.jpg
 
Too bad whoever designed this wasn't being awesome

5125fd8ee83c8aefd84d9cb15c0c3a1e--gamer-meme-pc-gamer.jpg

Haha, I think the not awesome person here is me for picking that version out of hundreds other ones... woops :isitsafe:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow and Wyote
Haha, I think the not awesome person here is me for picking that version out of hundreds other ones... woops :isitsafe:

It is a pretty picture tho! :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow and Ren
I agree, it's great. Here's another good one (this thread is turning into a Heraclitus fanclub session):

As it should be!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote and Ren
"Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy." Martin Heidegger

This a thorny question to which I don't have the answer, but I sometimes wonder. On the one hand, of course I want to say: "Yes, philosophy should be easy to understand. Otherwise, what's the point? It's just obscurantism." On the other hand, with technical language comes the ability to say more things in fewer words, and to gain in precision. The thing is, sometimes technical language is not necessary; and other times it can be technical in a way that is not inaccessible.

So I'm wondering what you think, guys. What is your stance on philosophy and intelligibility? :eek:_q:

If your philosophy is not intelligible, then you are not a good writer. Its that simple. Steven Pinker wrote about this in his book: The Sense of Style. Consider anything from Karl Popper. Is his work difficult to understand? If you have a college education, his work is exceedingly easy to understand. And he was an exceedingly original thinker.
 
If your philosophy is not intelligible, then you are not a good writer. Its that simple. Steven Pinker wrote about this in his book: The Sense of Style. Consider anything from Karl Popper. Is his work difficult to understand? If you have a college education, his work is exceedingly easy to understand. And he was an exceedingly original thinker.

Depends on writing style. If it's not easy to understand maybe the person is most comfortable with that form. Then someone else comes along and breaks it down for the general community. I wouldn't say it's one way or the other, it just is. Much like the gears of a watch they work in unison for the greater purpose of keeping time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote and Ren
Depends on writing style. If it's not easy to understand maybe the person is most comfortable with that form. Then someone else comes along and breaks it down for the general community. I wouldn't say it's one way or the other, it just is. Much like the gears of a watch they work in unison for the greater purpose of keeping time.

No that's just an excuse. Consider anything from Malcolm Gladwell. He makes complex ideas seem obvious. Thats how good he is.
 
No that's just an excuse. Consider anything from Malcolm Gladwell. He makes complex ideas seem obvious. Thats how good he is.

I don't think you can look at something black and white as you do with most of your statements. That's how indoctrination works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote
I don't think you can look at something black and white as you do with most of your statements. That's how indoctrination works.

Defending clear style is not the same as indoctrination.

That's how straw men work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyote