This is one reason I rarely read historical philosophers directly, particularly continental ones. People say we shouldn't depend on other people's interpretations of their writing, but my confidence that I could do any better myself is very low, and the effort doesn't seem worth it. I find the SEP articles on their views enough work.
Thanks. Yeah, I hear you on the SEP articles. I actually prefer the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a more straightforward explanation of terms: https://iep.utm.edu/eds/
SEP can more difficult than reading the philosophers themselves sometimes (depending on who we're talking about). Some philosophers are worth reading directly since they're not cry-yourself-to-sleep hard. Hobbes, Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, those guys are pretty easy, relatively speaking. The trick is often about getting a good translation or finding a version where they took out all the capitalized nouns and obnoxious spellings and the like. That's true for Plato as well. The difference between reading the ubiquitous Jowett translation and picking up a translation that takes more liberties with the Greek to make Plato sound more contemporary (instead of when Jowett wrote in the 1800s) can make for a much much more pleasurable reading experience. Like night and day really.
I like the IEP when it covers a subject. But it doesn't seem as complete. And the SEP seems more prestigious and authoritative, but that means more academic writing. I agree if you just want an intro, the IEP can be a better place to start.
I actually find Plato and Aristotle easier to read than English writers before the 20th century, I'm sure because of the translations. Early modern English authors just feel like a sludge. But at least I can parse passages quoted from them, unlike the continental stuff.
Ah, yes, it's relatively relative isn't it? I'm just super duper happy when I don't have to spend five minutes per sentence. Maybe the entire reason I'm gravitating to idealism right now is because Berkeley only took me a few days to finish—and that was just my usual reading before bed! Cue "Hallelujah!"
I have to admit to a bias toward philosophy, or any kind of ideas, that are stated clearly and straightforwardly. The more work involved in figuring out what they're saying, the more likely that they themselves haven't actually figured it out and that their theories are muddled. That's my experience in business, and I haven't seen any reason for academia to be different.
I hear you. It usually is the case that unclear writing amounts to unclear thinking...except in philosophy. It's a very strange thing really. But the truth is, if we only read clear philosophical writing, Kant wouldn't be famous. His thoughts were muddled at times (he was the one I had in mind when I said, "You can barely get through a paragraph without contradicting yourself"), but overall his system makes sense, even if I disagree with it. He requires a great deal of generosity.
Just last night I was thinking about all the philosophers whose writing stinks and how they each stink in a unique way. It would be nice if they all stunk in the same way so you could at least get better at reading them, but no. Each time it's an entirely new form of stink, and each time you have to learn an entirely new strategy for getting through it.
Good points. I guess new concepts, which are often what is being explored in philosophical writing, can be the hardest things to explain. And I think about my own struggles explaining some concepts on my blog.
If it makes you feel any better, it isn't just philosophers. I often find academic history, sociology, and anthropology writing just as pointlessly dense or convoluted. And of course scientists often just drop into mathematics or other technical notation to make up for clumsy writing. While the good writers manage to make the math or technical notation optional reading.
Sometimes it's hard to remember that clear writing is a skill, one many of the most intelligent people out there struggle with.
I understand Husserl wrote in German, which can pile up nouns like a car crash on the Autobahn, or so I'm told. Whitehead wrote in English, and he was obviously capable of being lucid and even entertaining, but he felt the need to make up new words for what he was trying to say. At this he was often very bad ("misplaced concreteness" being an exception), because he barely defined them, or constantly re-defined and changed them, or used equally incomprehensible terms to explain them; or because the words themselves were excruciatingly awkward and in defiance of common usage; or because of some unfortunate combination of these considerations.
The problem itself is much older. It goes back at least to Spinoza, who in fairness was trying to hammer out definitions of "properties" and "attributes" when they were still being forged among his contemporaries; he merely fell afoul of what became the tradition. I suspect Hegel was the true founder of impenetrable philosophical prose, although I haven't read him. Kant appears to have engaged in it by times, although not without regrets. As he wrote in the _Prolegomena_ concerning his own _Critique of Pure Reason_, "It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because men choose to skim through the book and not to think through it -- a disagreeable task, because the work is dry, obscure, opposed to all ordinary notions, and moreover long-winded." In the Appendix, clearly smarting from an unkind review, he railed that it was as though "one who had never seen or heard of geometry, having found a Euclid and coming upon various figures in turning over its leaves, were to say, on being asked his opinion of it: 'The work is a textbook of drawing; the author introduces a peculiar terminology, in order to give dark, incomprehensible directions, which in the end teach nothing more than what everyone can affect by a fair natural accuracy of eye, etc.'"
Kierkegaard, who by times was downright poetic, also indulged regularly in metaphysical obscurities, although one is never sure whether in mockery. He advocated a form of what he called "indirect communication," using various pseudonyms to convey thoughts and manners of thinking with which he did not himself necessarily agree, in order to limn something that he did not believe could be communicated directly. Wittgenstein was another thinker who (in my reading) struggled with the limits of language in getting through to people, and I understand he took great interest in Kierkegaard and indirect communication -- a topic in my to-do list. It's of special interest to me, because sometimes I think that language has to be twisted and tortured and teased to say something inadmissible or incomprehensible within the received vocabulary, or discourse, or ontology, of the intended audience. It's what poets and artists do, naturally and inchoately but effectively, and what philosophers, or at least my favourite philosophers, struggle to do in an environment basically alien to their purposes, often to little effect beyond the faintly comical.
This runs counter to the thesis of _Truth and Generosity_, and is more in line with the ideas of Edward Sapir, quoted as a foil in Neal's book. And yet I think _Truth and Generosity_ has a lot in common with George Steiner's _Real Presences_, which is exactly about the problem of communicating the inadmissible to an audience that lacks the required concepts, and has no sense that anything is lacking.
I've heard that native Germans actually look for English translations of German philosophers. Now that's saying something! That's a fun passage from Kant. I recall him railing against people who use the word 'idea' loosely, as in, "I have an idea!" I think that was somewhere in the Critique of Pure Reason. I'll never find the passage though. I just remember thinking, "Dude. Take a chill pill."
You could say the literal-minded turn against natural language began with the birth of philosophy when it separated from poetry and religion. At least you can see the beginnings of it in Plato, whose famous lecture on the Good was apparently not what the audience expected.
I enjoyed reading Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. They aren't on my list of incomprehensible philosophers, or at least being poetic is okay by me.
Anything in particular in regards to truth? That's a broad topic in philosophy! Of course I can't help but plug Truth and Generosity: https://a.co/d/5f58pzv
As for informal logic, I haven't read this myself, but my husband just pulled this off the shelf (he doesn't remember reading it though):
We have the second edition and it looks like a lively read from the introduction.
Now you've given me an idea for blog posts, so thank you! I think it's great that you're interested in learning about this. It's amazing to me that public schools require everyone to take numerous math courses—and most of what I learned in them I don't remember, as I have never needed to use much more than basic arithmetic—but not a basic non-symbolic logic class, which relates to just about everything in life. Good call!
One more thing Tina Lee if I may. I ask about books because I cannot get enough of informal logic (i.e. the fallacies), and find most textbooks inadequate. Especially recently published books. Many of these reek of politics. One actually took some pains to discount the Appeal to Authority fallacy, stating that we can indeed consider evidence by "experts" as more valid because they are experts(!) This is sinister.
Whoa. That's nuts. Half the fun of logic is learning there are fallacies everywhere, all the time, and we can't help but believe in some of them. The other half is taking down the authorities. :)
My husband wrote a book called "Articulation of Thought" for his class, but never published it. I don't even have a digital file, just a paper copy with notes written all over it, but you've got me thinking about mining it for future posts. Anyway, I know there's a section on informal fallacies, so I'll see what I can do.
I think the biggest obstacle for us as individuals is the predisposition to rely upon the so-called “experts” for the information we receive, or whatever idea is popular at the time. It’s like shopping isn’t it?
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t read what the notable academics have to say, but we should do more thinking for ourselves. I think the current state of affairs when it comes to consciousness studies falls under the umbrella of Schopenhauer’s assessment:
“When we read, someone else thinks for us; we repeat merely his mental process. …the work of thinking is for the most part taken away from us. …But while we are reading our mind is really only the playground of other people’s ideas; and when these finally depart, what remains?
…whoever reads very much …gradually loses the ability to think for himself; …But such is the case with very many scholars; they have read themselves stupid.”
However, from analytic reading one can glean some nuggets of insight to assist one’s own individual quest for enlightenment. Here are a few of my favorites for the New year:
Niels Bohr:
“What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly.”
Richard Rorty:
“…without a vocabulary that captures either the way the world really is, or a core human nature, there is never any possibility to locate a metaphysical foundation for truth and that the endeavor should be abandoned.”
His justification for abandoning this intellectual quest consists of few words:
“In order to locate this standard, the seeker must already be at the convergent consensus point which is being sought. The seeker must already know what this is in order to recognize it when seen.”
And what is this paradox that limits our ability to be at this “convergent consensus point”? My favorite quote from Robert Pirsig says it clearly and succinctly:
“There is genetic defect in the underlying form of reasoning and rationality; and unless or until we are willing to address this defect nothing will change.”
I would say that this last quote from Robert Pirsig has influenced my life in a way that changed everything. It was the catalyst for the quest I've been pursuing for the last 44 years.
Have a great new year Tina and I wish you the very best…….
Thanks for these thought-provoking quotes, I enjoyed them. I like to think I'm thinking for myself, but maybe all my thoughts are just particles moving through the aether. ;)
"The seeker must already know what this is in order to recognize it when seen.” Hence, Plato's theory of recollection. (I don't know why belief in reincarnation isn't a more popular religious belief. It has so much more explanatory power than heaven and hell.)
Reincarnation is an ancient religious tradition and it's no surprise that Plato bought into that particular schema. The question of what happens after death is another one of those high priority items on our shopping list right?
Personally, I don't think that any type of emotional or psychological dependency upon a religious faith is necessarily healthy. Our entire experience here is one of uncertainty and ultimately one has to ask oneself: What is my tolerance for uncertainty? And then deal with it.
My own tolerance is very high therefore, I find all religious traditions to be counterproductive.
The older I get the lower my tolerance…for just about everything, uncertainty most of all. I hope I don’t become a housefly in the next life. Or paramecium. Although what do I know, maybe those are the happiest beings of all.
Love that Schopenhauer quote. Then again, in my view (fwiw), reading (philosophical stuff, not fiction) is a bit like mining for gold in that one has to discard 99.999% of the word-ore to reveal the speck of thought-gold. *And even then* that golden thought is merely a signpost — granted, a very useful one, but a signpost still. A handy shortcut can be learning how to allow the mind to go to sleep whilst remaining fully awake/alert/aware. That's a very hard skill to learn, but the ride to get there can be a lot more interesting than reading 10,000 'explaining' books imo.
This is one reason I rarely read historical philosophers directly, particularly continental ones. People say we shouldn't depend on other people's interpretations of their writing, but my confidence that I could do any better myself is very low, and the effort doesn't seem worth it. I find the SEP articles on their views enough work.
Well said Tina!
Thanks. Yeah, I hear you on the SEP articles. I actually prefer the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a more straightforward explanation of terms: https://iep.utm.edu/eds/
SEP can more difficult than reading the philosophers themselves sometimes (depending on who we're talking about). Some philosophers are worth reading directly since they're not cry-yourself-to-sleep hard. Hobbes, Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, those guys are pretty easy, relatively speaking. The trick is often about getting a good translation or finding a version where they took out all the capitalized nouns and obnoxious spellings and the like. That's true for Plato as well. The difference between reading the ubiquitous Jowett translation and picking up a translation that takes more liberties with the Greek to make Plato sound more contemporary (instead of when Jowett wrote in the 1800s) can make for a much much more pleasurable reading experience. Like night and day really.
I like the IEP when it covers a subject. But it doesn't seem as complete. And the SEP seems more prestigious and authoritative, but that means more academic writing. I agree if you just want an intro, the IEP can be a better place to start.
I actually find Plato and Aristotle easier to read than English writers before the 20th century, I'm sure because of the translations. Early modern English authors just feel like a sludge. But at least I can parse passages quoted from them, unlike the continental stuff.
Ah, yes, it's relatively relative isn't it? I'm just super duper happy when I don't have to spend five minutes per sentence. Maybe the entire reason I'm gravitating to idealism right now is because Berkeley only took me a few days to finish—and that was just my usual reading before bed! Cue "Hallelujah!"
I have to admit to a bias toward philosophy, or any kind of ideas, that are stated clearly and straightforwardly. The more work involved in figuring out what they're saying, the more likely that they themselves haven't actually figured it out and that their theories are muddled. That's my experience in business, and I haven't seen any reason for academia to be different.
I hear you. It usually is the case that unclear writing amounts to unclear thinking...except in philosophy. It's a very strange thing really. But the truth is, if we only read clear philosophical writing, Kant wouldn't be famous. His thoughts were muddled at times (he was the one I had in mind when I said, "You can barely get through a paragraph without contradicting yourself"), but overall his system makes sense, even if I disagree with it. He requires a great deal of generosity.
Just last night I was thinking about all the philosophers whose writing stinks and how they each stink in a unique way. It would be nice if they all stunk in the same way so you could at least get better at reading them, but no. Each time it's an entirely new form of stink, and each time you have to learn an entirely new strategy for getting through it.
Good points. I guess new concepts, which are often what is being explored in philosophical writing, can be the hardest things to explain. And I think about my own struggles explaining some concepts on my blog.
If it makes you feel any better, it isn't just philosophers. I often find academic history, sociology, and anthropology writing just as pointlessly dense or convoluted. And of course scientists often just drop into mathematics or other technical notation to make up for clumsy writing. While the good writers manage to make the math or technical notation optional reading.
Sometimes it's hard to remember that clear writing is a skill, one many of the most intelligent people out there struggle with.
I understand Husserl wrote in German, which can pile up nouns like a car crash on the Autobahn, or so I'm told. Whitehead wrote in English, and he was obviously capable of being lucid and even entertaining, but he felt the need to make up new words for what he was trying to say. At this he was often very bad ("misplaced concreteness" being an exception), because he barely defined them, or constantly re-defined and changed them, or used equally incomprehensible terms to explain them; or because the words themselves were excruciatingly awkward and in defiance of common usage; or because of some unfortunate combination of these considerations.
The problem itself is much older. It goes back at least to Spinoza, who in fairness was trying to hammer out definitions of "properties" and "attributes" when they were still being forged among his contemporaries; he merely fell afoul of what became the tradition. I suspect Hegel was the true founder of impenetrable philosophical prose, although I haven't read him. Kant appears to have engaged in it by times, although not without regrets. As he wrote in the _Prolegomena_ concerning his own _Critique of Pure Reason_, "It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because men choose to skim through the book and not to think through it -- a disagreeable task, because the work is dry, obscure, opposed to all ordinary notions, and moreover long-winded." In the Appendix, clearly smarting from an unkind review, he railed that it was as though "one who had never seen or heard of geometry, having found a Euclid and coming upon various figures in turning over its leaves, were to say, on being asked his opinion of it: 'The work is a textbook of drawing; the author introduces a peculiar terminology, in order to give dark, incomprehensible directions, which in the end teach nothing more than what everyone can affect by a fair natural accuracy of eye, etc.'"
Kierkegaard, who by times was downright poetic, also indulged regularly in metaphysical obscurities, although one is never sure whether in mockery. He advocated a form of what he called "indirect communication," using various pseudonyms to convey thoughts and manners of thinking with which he did not himself necessarily agree, in order to limn something that he did not believe could be communicated directly. Wittgenstein was another thinker who (in my reading) struggled with the limits of language in getting through to people, and I understand he took great interest in Kierkegaard and indirect communication -- a topic in my to-do list. It's of special interest to me, because sometimes I think that language has to be twisted and tortured and teased to say something inadmissible or incomprehensible within the received vocabulary, or discourse, or ontology, of the intended audience. It's what poets and artists do, naturally and inchoately but effectively, and what philosophers, or at least my favourite philosophers, struggle to do in an environment basically alien to their purposes, often to little effect beyond the faintly comical.
This runs counter to the thesis of _Truth and Generosity_, and is more in line with the ideas of Edward Sapir, quoted as a foil in Neal's book. And yet I think _Truth and Generosity_ has a lot in common with George Steiner's _Real Presences_, which is exactly about the problem of communicating the inadmissible to an audience that lacks the required concepts, and has no sense that anything is lacking.
I've heard that native Germans actually look for English translations of German philosophers. Now that's saying something! That's a fun passage from Kant. I recall him railing against people who use the word 'idea' loosely, as in, "I have an idea!" I think that was somewhere in the Critique of Pure Reason. I'll never find the passage though. I just remember thinking, "Dude. Take a chill pill."
You could say the literal-minded turn against natural language began with the birth of philosophy when it separated from poetry and religion. At least you can see the beginnings of it in Plato, whose famous lecture on the Good was apparently not what the audience expected.
I enjoyed reading Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. They aren't on my list of incomprehensible philosophers, or at least being poetic is okay by me.
I'd like to know any books dealing with the philosophy of truth. Also (or) a good book on informal logic, if anyone can make a recommendation.
Anything in particular in regards to truth? That's a broad topic in philosophy! Of course I can't help but plug Truth and Generosity: https://a.co/d/5f58pzv
As for informal logic, I haven't read this myself, but my husband just pulled this off the shelf (he doesn't remember reading it though):
https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Logic-Vincent-Barry/dp/0030126932
We have the second edition and it looks like a lively read from the introduction.
Now you've given me an idea for blog posts, so thank you! I think it's great that you're interested in learning about this. It's amazing to me that public schools require everyone to take numerous math courses—and most of what I learned in them I don't remember, as I have never needed to use much more than basic arithmetic—but not a basic non-symbolic logic class, which relates to just about everything in life. Good call!
Thanks!
One more thing Tina Lee if I may. I ask about books because I cannot get enough of informal logic (i.e. the fallacies), and find most textbooks inadequate. Especially recently published books. Many of these reek of politics. One actually took some pains to discount the Appeal to Authority fallacy, stating that we can indeed consider evidence by "experts" as more valid because they are experts(!) This is sinister.
Whoa. That's nuts. Half the fun of logic is learning there are fallacies everywhere, all the time, and we can't help but believe in some of them. The other half is taking down the authorities. :)
My husband wrote a book called "Articulation of Thought" for his class, but never published it. I don't even have a digital file, just a paper copy with notes written all over it, but you've got me thinking about mining it for future posts. Anyway, I know there's a section on informal fallacies, so I'll see what I can do.
I think the biggest obstacle for us as individuals is the predisposition to rely upon the so-called “experts” for the information we receive, or whatever idea is popular at the time. It’s like shopping isn’t it?
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t read what the notable academics have to say, but we should do more thinking for ourselves. I think the current state of affairs when it comes to consciousness studies falls under the umbrella of Schopenhauer’s assessment:
“When we read, someone else thinks for us; we repeat merely his mental process. …the work of thinking is for the most part taken away from us. …But while we are reading our mind is really only the playground of other people’s ideas; and when these finally depart, what remains?
…whoever reads very much …gradually loses the ability to think for himself; …But such is the case with very many scholars; they have read themselves stupid.”
However, from analytic reading one can glean some nuggets of insight to assist one’s own individual quest for enlightenment. Here are a few of my favorites for the New year:
Niels Bohr:
“What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words... Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character ... We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly.”
Richard Rorty:
“…without a vocabulary that captures either the way the world really is, or a core human nature, there is never any possibility to locate a metaphysical foundation for truth and that the endeavor should be abandoned.”
His justification for abandoning this intellectual quest consists of few words:
“In order to locate this standard, the seeker must already be at the convergent consensus point which is being sought. The seeker must already know what this is in order to recognize it when seen.”
And what is this paradox that limits our ability to be at this “convergent consensus point”? My favorite quote from Robert Pirsig says it clearly and succinctly:
“There is genetic defect in the underlying form of reasoning and rationality; and unless or until we are willing to address this defect nothing will change.”
I would say that this last quote from Robert Pirsig has influenced my life in a way that changed everything. It was the catalyst for the quest I've been pursuing for the last 44 years.
Have a great new year Tina and I wish you the very best…….
Thanks for these thought-provoking quotes, I enjoyed them. I like to think I'm thinking for myself, but maybe all my thoughts are just particles moving through the aether. ;)
"The seeker must already know what this is in order to recognize it when seen.” Hence, Plato's theory of recollection. (I don't know why belief in reincarnation isn't a more popular religious belief. It has so much more explanatory power than heaven and hell.)
Happy new year to you too!
Reincarnation is an ancient religious tradition and it's no surprise that Plato bought into that particular schema. The question of what happens after death is another one of those high priority items on our shopping list right?
Personally, I don't think that any type of emotional or psychological dependency upon a religious faith is necessarily healthy. Our entire experience here is one of uncertainty and ultimately one has to ask oneself: What is my tolerance for uncertainty? And then deal with it.
My own tolerance is very high therefore, I find all religious traditions to be counterproductive.
The older I get the lower my tolerance…for just about everything, uncertainty most of all. I hope I don’t become a housefly in the next life. Or paramecium. Although what do I know, maybe those are the happiest beings of all.
Love that Schopenhauer quote. Then again, in my view (fwiw), reading (philosophical stuff, not fiction) is a bit like mining for gold in that one has to discard 99.999% of the word-ore to reveal the speck of thought-gold. *And even then* that golden thought is merely a signpost — granted, a very useful one, but a signpost still. A handy shortcut can be learning how to allow the mind to go to sleep whilst remaining fully awake/alert/aware. That's a very hard skill to learn, but the ride to get there can be a lot more interesting than reading 10,000 'explaining' books imo.