Does political jargon prevent social progress?

[vikingligrveldi]

Just wondering if anyone has ever thought that the use of political or philosophical jargon is preventing any true political movements in the 21st century? The ridiculous misuse of excessively obscure vocabulary (especially in the realm of philosophy) has mutated into an immobile beast of old ideas expressed in newer more flashy language.

Is there a place for balance between the political philosophies which exist in our heads and an actual practical means by which they can be realized??? And if so how is it that the intellectuals posing as revolutionaries, though they endlessly speak of the "masses" and the interests of the "common person" have drifted so far away from a suitable means of communication that will influence the thoughts and decisions of others outside their elitist circle??

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

It isn't just vocabulary that insulates societal critics from the general public. The ideas themselves are simply too much for most people to stomach in a lot of cases. I recall a "critical issues in society" course that I took some years back, and we spent the entire course discussing marxist feminism and queer theory. Education is the only real answer. People have to be brought up to a higher level, pandering won't do much good for anyone.

 

[speed]

Just wondering if anyone has ever thought that the use of political or philosophical jargon is preventing any true political movements in the 21st century? The ridiculous misuse of excessively obscure vocabulary (especially in the realm of philosophy) has mutated into an immobile beast of old ideas expressed in newer more flashy language.

Is there a place for balance between the political philosophies which exist in our heads and an actual practical means by which they can be realized??? And if so how is it that the intellectuals posing as revolutionaries, though they endlessly speak of the "masses" and the interests of the "common person" have drifted so far away from a suitable means of communication that will influence the thoughts and decisions of others outside their elitist circle??

My warning is if one goes the other way--to a ridiculously simple journalistic style, or the text message style--then ideas are so degraded and tarnished, they're rendered useless. However, I do agree, Heidegger, Derrida, Debord (almost all academic philosophers who publish) and others use purposefully opaque language for no real reason other than to differentiate their ideas from those of the masses. Its sort of platonic idea, using terminilogy only a select few will grasp. And after having many suvh arguments over the years about this, philosophers claim many ideas can only be conveyed with specialized terminology (which I disagree with). It seems, upon browsing many a philosophical tome, if the philosophers had any writing talent at all, 90% of the time understanding philosophy would be eliminated, and so would most of the confusion.

Yet, philosophers like Cioran and Baudrillard use a sort of classical literary and poetic vocabulary I find most intoxicating (of course, 99.99% of philosophers dislike them, or scoff at them such playful, poetic, pun-happy prose).

In essense, writing and philosophy have all but seperated. Its symptomatic of all of society. Each field has become specialized, and the written word becomes less important, and more degraded. Writers and creative types like philosophers who can write (the Camus Foucaults and Ciorans) and steer clear of the rest of philosophy; Philosophers are suspicious of such persons and their clearness or literary ability, and seem to find such creativity dangerous and overly simplistic. Who knows who is right? But, Ive witnessed many a philosophical argument on this board and with others, that could easily be resolved with clear language.

 

[Έρεβος]

The greatest of philosophers seem to have been advanced philologists, or at least excellent with written or spoken word.

Why write so that the simpleton can grasp it? They are meant to be led, not to lead.

 

[Blowtus]

Simple speech is good for quick action and understanding, complicated speech is good for conveying more complex topics in a succinct and accurate manner. With an understanding of the ideas should come an understanding of the speech imho - the speech (when it is used purely for communicative purposes) does not prevent the understanding, it aids it.

 

[Έρεβος]

Exactly. Simple speech is able to get across simple concepts such as those of quick decision, and immediate action of concrete simple matters - such as "don't hold the hammer up so high on the handle," or "chew with your mouth closed!"

But, it is certainly not something to express complex concepts such as why this or that political/social issue is important/dangerous/whatever.

Sure, complex concepts can sort of be expressed in basic language. This would require, for one, a much greater number of words, and two, a shitload of unneeded mental effort on the part of the individual so simplifying it. In reality, many concepts could only be expressed with simple words if they were used to contruct things of much greater linguistic complexity - metaphors, symbolic references, etc. In such a way, the common man is still not able to gain understanding of such without becoming more than common. It isn't about bringing philosophy down to the common level, to the base idiotic level of society. Society seems to think everything is about that - leveling everything to the pathetic level of "everyone," and rejecting anything that is immortally above them.

There is one prominent example in history of expertly contructed philosophic & social concepts expressed in simple language - mythology. Mythologies, nearly all mythologies, are laden in extremely highly charged metaphors. The creation of the mythologies was a monumental effort undertaken by hundreds of generations of ancient intellectuals - philosophers before the concept of "philosophy." In such they were so perfectly contructed that even turning them into things of complex [philosophic] language would ruin the concepts that were so amazingly expressed through symbolism, metaphorism, and layers and layers of such linguistics.

But the funny thing about mythology is that the common man could never fully grasp it's scope, but could still fully benefit from it. The philosophic social & political ideas were not taught by bluntly trying to explain that which can't be explained in such ways. They were taught by rather directly bringing the philosophy to their lives, but not in a way that made it a static norm for everyone - rather one that could never allow such an atrocity. Mythology was not about understanding the philosophy, it was rather about "living it." The common man was led, led firstly by the greater order, the ideal; and secondly by the greater men - as they were the creators and sustainers of this.

Only the philosophers, the leaders, the "great" individuals, are meant to really ever understand. In the modern day everyone "must" understand, therefore society and politics are run by idiotic and foolishly simple ideas - ones that a drooling manchild can easily grasp. Everything is lowered to a base retarded level - hedonism and materialism. Beyond this, if this system doesn't self-destruct, will be an even more disgusting and frightening prospect - ideas that are sustainable and stable - utopian ideas - the creation of a single human that populates the entire earth and lives for nothing but to live in the most base empty biological manner.

 

[Seditious]

Sure, complex concepts can sort of be expressed in basic language. This would require, for one, a much greater number of words, and two, a shitload of unneeded mental effort on the part of the individual so simplifying it.

that has always seemed the extent of it to me.

Took me a minute of skimming through my quotes collection to find what I was looking for. "The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter." - Blaise Pascal. Similarly I think some thinkers don't take the luxury of making their writings fit for the nonacademic community.

I don't think an philosopher or his ideas are unable to be simplified just that for some reason they just weren't written so. (Hegel may not wanted to help the reader, but the Hegelians today do go out of their way to translate his ideas for us, and in so far as anyone makes sense it's possible to do that)

 

[cryosteel]

Why write so that the simpleton can grasp it? They are meant to be led, not to lead.

particularism

Moral Particularism, at its most trenchant, is the claim that there are no defensible moral principles, that moral thought does not consist in the application of moral principles to cases, and that the morally perfect person should not be conceived as the person of principle. There are more cautious versions, however. The strongest defensible version, perhaps, holds that though there may be some moral principles, still the rationality of moral thought and judgement in no way depends on a suitable provision of such things; and the perfectly moral judge would need far more than a grasp on an appropriate range of principles and the ability to apply them. Moral principles are at best crutches that a morally sensitive person would not require, and indeed the use of such crutches might even lead us into moral error.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-particularism/

generalism

Killing is wrong.

Capital punishment is killing.

Therefore, capital punishment is wrong.

http://comp.uark.edu/~rlee/gmp/help.html

Killing is wrong in particular, not in general. Scenarios could in fact exist where it is immoral to not kill. Simpletons are not trusted with considerate discretion such as in the preceding example and since most people are simpletons we are all given moral generalism and the mediocrity of egalitarianism.

Crowdism examines the phenomenon from the outside.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Killing is wrong in particular, not in general. Scenarios could in fact exist where it is immoral to not kill. Simpletons are not trusted with considerate discretion such as in the preceding example and since most people are simpletons we are all given moral generalism and the mediocrity of egalitarianism.

Crowdism examines the phenomenon from the outside.

Except that, many who say that capital punishment is wrong because killing is wrong are hypocrites because they are in favour of waging wars.

Speed's point about philosophers often making their messages unnecessarily complicated is true. And I agree that some have flaws in their writing style and also, imo, in their thought process, that make points that could be clearly expressed become obscure. It is a useful skill to be able to clearly express oneself with as few words as possible. But this is only admirable when clarity rather than art is the purpose.

When people use too many words and complicated language it is often because they really have nothing sensible to say.

If a philosophy is intended for public consumption, and for the purpose of leading (or otherwise influencing) the masses, then it will have to be expressed in terms simple enough for the audience to comprehend.

However, an alternative to this, is to have others interpret ideas that are expressed in too high-brow a way for the people. This could be beneficial in that the most intelligent people do not feel that the philosopher's tone is patronising, while the ideas are still passed down to the less intelligent.

 

[speed]

If a philosophy is intended for public consumption, and for the purpose of leading (or otherwise influencing) the masses, then it will have to be expressed in terms simple enough for the audience to comprehend.

However, an alternative to this, is to have others interpret ideas that are expressed in too high-brow a way for the people. This could be beneficial in that the most intelligent people do not feel that the philosopher's tone is patronising, while the ideas are still passed down to the less intelligent.

There is a real belief in all fields, not to offer such ideas for public consumption. It really hits all spheres. I think its indicative of post-modern society. The language and structure of each discipline's or even company (yes even companys have specialized jargon) is highly specialized. This specialization is almost the guarentee or meaning of each job or field. It is only this specialized knowledge that truly seperates me wide-ranging dilletante and dabbler, from say a analytical psychologist,etc. Whereas the media, art, literature, the media, politics, science, all presented for public consumption is terrifically simplistic to the point of absurdity. This is a real problem for the operation of a well-functioning society. People can only specialize in one thing, while the rest of life, government, etc, become so simplified and dumbed down, we get a population of gullible idiots. A idiocracy.

I do think it is possible for philosophy, science etc. to be clear and available for public consumption without dumbing the product or ideas down. In fact, I think it totally necessary for such a thing to happen. This used to happen, especially in philosophy. However, I dont see it happening anymore. Ideas, theories, schools, disciplines, are so numerous and specialized, i dont even know if its possible for such knowledge to be dissemenated anymore. There's a billion fields of everything. One cannot know all the theories and major contemporary ideas of psychiatry, physics, philosophy anymore.

 

[Nile577]

'Clarity' is rightfully not the end goal of much continental philosophy. Such thought is written 'ontologically' rather than as a set of principles to be digested, assimilated and functionally discarded. The whole of such thought attempts to move away from the discourse of 'easily assimilated' one-dimensional being.

Because this work deals with foundational questions – the question of Being; the question of existence, the return to phenomenology – it articulates concepts for which language has not been designed. Thus philosophical neologisms and differing etymologies are entirely necessary.

This thread is excellent evidence of how philosophy is dishonestly appropriated by social discourse as something 'external' to action and supposed 'concrete truths.' Until it is recognised that all thought is philosophy, that ‘philosophers’ are not a specialist ‘group,’ and that thinking IS, continental thought will continue to be dismissed arrogantly and pretentiously by a standard of ‘clarity’ that lacks consideration, subtlety and taste.

"To make itself intelligible would be suicide for philosophy." - Heidegger.

 

[Justin S.]

Nile577,

Do you have the source of that last quotation? I have run across it several times now, never cited.

 

[Nile577]

"Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," ie, by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness." - Contributions to Philosophy from Enowning

 

[derbeder]

Contributions to Philosophy (from Enowning) is Heidegger at his most obscure. That was supposed to be the magnum opus after the alleged turn in his thinking in 1930. It is not worth a dime compared to some of his lecture notes in the late 20s.

 

[Justin S.]

Thanks for finding that, Mike.

 

[Cythraul]

Jargon-y writing is not necessarily unintelligible. If some jargon-y piece of writing is intelligible then there must be some way in principle of coming to understand the jargon used, and this, it seems to me, should be achieved in language not containing said jargon, otherwise it's a complete mystery to me how one comes to understand stuff like Heidegger. How in the world does one even understand a piece of writing if it's not intelligible?

 

[hibernal_dream]

Speed's point about philosophers often making their messages unnecessarily complicated is true. And I agree that some have flaws in their writing style and also, imo, in their thought process, that make points that could be clearly expressed become obscure. It is a useful skill to be able to clearly express oneself with as few words as possible. But this is only admirable when clarity rather than art is the purpose.

When people use too many words and complicated language it is often because they really have nothing sensible to say.

If a philosophy is intended for public consumption, and for the purpose of leading (or otherwise influencing) the masses, then it will have to be expressed in terms simple enough for the audience to comprehend.

However, an alternative to this, is to have others interpret ideas that are expressed in too high-brow a way for the people. This could be beneficial in that the most intelligent people do not feel that the philosopher's tone is patronising, while the ideas are still passed down to the less intelligent.

Agree. I think political jargon must be said to be used in two respects: to advance sociological research, and to communicate to the masses information necessary for political participation. Those who use inappropriate technical devices to communicate their ideas (most journalists, politicians) have somehow got this distinction confused. Of course, those who know the utility of political communication and propaganda will make use of the distinction, for example the German socialist party revolution before WWI.