Philosophical discussion - best abstract or personal?

[Blowtus]

Something that has struck me a few times in my posting here is that it seems as though I'm more likely to write whatever ramblings I come up with in a more personal tone, reflecting on events, choices and emotions that influence my thought in a reasonably direct manner. Most times it seems whenever anyone else does they go very in depth and profusely apologise for it, though everyone always has plenty to say and some great posts are made imho

Now my thought that I post a little differently may be wrong, but is largely irrelevant anyway - the two modes of conveying ideas (I refer to two, the extremes, though the dichotomy is not necessarily so clear) each leave a different impression on the audience. Is one more advantageous for clarity of discussion? Does a personal tone ring through as 'needy'? Does an abstract tone cloak the discussion in a greater sense of intellectual majesty? Is that useful or simply 'needy' in a more subtle manner?

It seems to me that an abstract, generalised tone is of particular use when 'the personal' may cloud the discussion because of deep, unwitting prejudices on the part of all involved parties - but I also have a sense that it can be quite strong and possibly 'of more benefit' to not pander to such prejudice, if those involved are of the sort to expend effort in the interpretation of such a discussion.

For reading a philosophical text, I do not think I have a preference - in discussions I am active in I guess I find it more intellectually honest and rewarding if there is a personal groundwork laid for the thoughts, rather than what seems almost a pretence at times of them having arisen 'objectively'. Though of course, the big 'it depends' applies strongly to all cases

Thoughts?

 

[epihasi]

In my opinion, the best way to express philosophical thoughts, whether in discussions, texts or whatever, are in normal spoken language, even with curse words, in a non-arrogant tone.
Seriously, I mean why say:
"The way you render your opinions is not to my liking, for the subject matter is not touched in connection to the metaphysical fundament of this higly intellectual banter, you inferior fool",
when you could just as well say:
"Shut the fuck up, no one gives a shit what you think"


No seriously, I mean listen to the way Bill Hicks did it in his stand-up routines...it made you want to listen and understand his words, intentions and meaning.

 

[kmik]

I don't know if it's a troll but there's no reason why philosophy should be written in everyday language. If it can be simplified without altering content of course it should, but very often philosophy seeks to reveal the very misconceptions of language itself. Personally although I'm not knowledgeable it gets on my nerves when people quote some contemporary work out of context and then say it's gibberish. Differential equations and amino acids that can't be understood without background knowledge bother no one, but apparently philosophy has to be populist

 

[judas69]

In my opinion, the best way to express philosophical thoughts, whether in discussions, texts or whatever, are in normal spoken language, even with curse words, in a non-arrogant tone.

I guess you can eat spaghetti with your hands but, don't expect to be taken seriously.

As long as you're not cryptic and everyone understands what you're saying, there's nothing wrong with speaking as though you have some respect for the subject matter and of course, yourself.

 

[epihasi]

I see the point you guys are trying to make, and no, I'm not a troll, I am very fond of philosophy, BUT I see no point in philosophy having to be written in complex language and genius prose to be taken seriously.
I feel the thought behind the words is the same, the only difference is that as soon as it's written in normal tone, even with cursewords, it becomes nothing but a rant about a subject.
Philosophy, in my opinion should be for the masses, it should make you want to think, not have to read a page 7 times to superficially get the meaning.
It may sound like I just don't get philosophy, that the language is too "high" for me, but I've read Nietzsche for example, "The Antichrist", and although I understood the points he's making, I couldn't help but think that the same opinion and criticism could have been written in everyday language, just for the sake of better comprehension.
Amino acids and differential equations need background information to be understood, but that's simply because they are merely a small part of something larger, they have to be seen in context or else they make no sense. It is superfluos to know what amino acids are, if you don't know they are in our body, what purposes they serve.
Same with differential equations, they don't help you, if you don't know what to do with them.
A philosophical idea is not something scientists have to first discover under electrone microscopes, when analyzing a larger concept (such as the human body for example).
A philosophical idea is born from thinking, and there is no way the philosophers' thoughts sound the way they write their theories, but the concept of amino acids is that difficult and cannot be seen in an easier way...The explanation of biological and mathematical fundaments, well that is a different case.
But I see your points, and again, I'm not a troll, it's just my opinion.

 

[speed]

I don't know if it's a troll but there's no reason why philosophy should be written in everyday language. If it can be simplified without altering content of course it should, but very often philosophy seeks to reveal the very misconceptions of language itself. Personally although I'm not knowledgeable it gets on my nerves when people quote some contemporary work out of context and then say it's gibberish. Differential equations and amino acids that can't be understood without background knowledge bother no one, but apparently philosophy has to be populist

Hm...I think I disagree. My problem, as I've expounded at great length on throughout this forum, is with Heidegger and all his followers, and not to mention post modern philosophy. Its primarily concerned with semantics, and pure thought--which Wittgenstein underminded--and not morality, exploring life and ones felow man, politics and culture, how to live, etc.

Wonderful critique, which I think highlights many of my problems with Heidegger, and by extension, most of todays philosophy:

Heidegger sought to refute the Athenians within the realm of abstract reason and descended into the mere semantics I ridiculed in the essay you cite. His acceptance as the 20th century's philosophical "genius" (as Strauss hailed him) is a scandal. What explains Heidegger's popularity, I believe, is the obvious fact that the Athenians were not purely abstract but also existential thinkers. If Socrates was so reasonable, any layman will ask, why did he drink the hemlock rather than escape into exile and continue teaching? Surely that is what Leo Strauss would have done. As I wrote to Russ Winter above, Socrates drank the hemlock not because he was sure his soul would migrate to something better but because he could not turn away from the existential choice of being Athenian. Strip away all of Heidegger's word games, and his message reduces to this: If Socrates drank the hemlock to remain Athenian, what prevents me from supporting Hitler in order to remain German? Heidegger never apologized for his flagrant Nazism, to the well-deserved embarrassment of Hannah Arendt. To

And yet there is the nagging problem of Heidegger, who rejected all tellers of absolute truth and Socrates most vehemently. As an impressionable young man, Strauss fell under Heidegger's influence and never quite shook it. Considering Heidegger's grandiose reputation, it is depressing to consider how cheap was the trick he played. What is Being?, he demanded of a generation that after the First World War felt the ground shaky under their feet. It is a shame that Eddie Murphy never studied philosophy, for then we might have had the following Saturday Night Live sketch about Heidegger's definition of Being with respect to Non-Being, namely death. The use of dialect would make Heidegger's meaning far clearer than in the available English translations:

"What be 'Be'? You cain't say that 'Be' be, cause you saying 'be' to talk about 'Be', and it don't mean nothing to say that 'Be' be dis or 'Be' be dat. 'Be' be 'Be' to begin wit'. So don't you be saying 'Be' be 'Be'. You wanna talk about 'Be', you gotta talk about what ain't be nothin' at all. You gotta say 'Be' be what ain't 'ain't-Be'. Now when you ain't be nothing at all? Dat be when you be daid. When you daid you ain't be nothing, you just be daid. So 'Be' be somewhere between where you be and where you ain't be, dat is, when you be daid. Any time you say 'Be' you is also saying 'ain't-Be', and dat make you think about being daid."

That is all there is to Heidegger's Existential idea of Being-towards-death. Metaphysical pettifogging of this sort appeals to people whom the disintegration of social order has made uncertain about their sense of being. The enunciation of the concept "Being" dredges up the problem of mortality, Heidegger continued. Men confront their mortality under particular circumstances, in what came to be called "radical historicism", that is, the complete absence of absolute truths. What remains is subjective Existential choice. Heidegger's was to join the Nazis.

 

[Nile577]

What remains is subjective Existential choice. Heidegger's was to join the Nazis.

The above critique demonstrates a very poor understanding of Heidegger. Dasein is not a subject at all, and if we think Heidegger is concerned with mere semantics, we need to spend more time reading "On the Way to Language."

Also, far from being a brilliant, I find the playing of the 'nazi' card at the conclusion to be disappointingly representative of the sensationalist and vapid quality of the wider piece.

 

[kmik]

I'm not talking about modern philosophy. All philosophers are hard to understand out of context and with time subject matter becomes more complicated and so it is only appropriate that it becomes hard to understand for the laymen. In Newton's time an intellectual could embrace all human knowledge; now there are few mathematicians who can understand the proof of Fermat's Theorem. For some reason philosophy has to be easily understandable? Of course it could be crap, theoretically, but there is an automatic dismissal because of the language.

 

[Nile577]

Its primarily concerned with semantics, and pure thought--which Wittgenstein underminded--and not morality, exploring life and ones felow man, politics and culture, how to live, etc.

I disagree. It is that these 'subjects' are not thought of as being self-evidently distinct from life, to be demarcated as 'topics' similar to math, physics, chemistry etc.

Levinas' ethics of the other, Heidegger's discussions of cultural authenticity and 'ethics' derived from caring for the fourfold (mortals-earth-sky-gods), Derrida's engagement with Fukuyama's political 'end of history,' Foucault's epistemic discourses of power and Sartre's complex notion of ontological self-revelation through being-with-others are intensely engaging and not at all detached or semantic.

'How to live' presupposes an understanding of what we mean by life and, in its formulation, begs for a distastefully descriptive and even instructional answer.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

In Newton's time an intellectual could embrace all human knowledge; now there are few mathematicians who can understand the proof of Fermat's Theorem.

This is completely untrue. When Principia Mathematica was first published, perhaps a dozen people in the whole world could properly understand it.

 

[kmik]

You are right, perhaps I should put it differently: an intellectual, today, can know everything that was known in Newton's time in science. Fields of knowledge, anyway, get more and more particular and harder to understand without much background knowledge.

 

[speed]

I'm not talking about modern philosophy. All philosophers are hard to understand out of context and with time subject matter becomes more complicated and so it is only appropriate that it becomes hard to understand for the laymen. In Newton's time an intellectual could embrace all human knowledge; now there are few mathematicians who can understand the proof of Fermat's Theorem. For some reason philosophy has to be easily understandable? Of course it could be crap, theoretically, but there is an automatic dismissal because of the language.

Am I to assume that your point is the world has become so complex and specialized, that philosoiphy by extension has too? I think this is perhaps the greatest problem with modernity and our current world, and also perhaps the inspiration of the feeling of nihilism that abounds in the West, and in recent Western philosophy. As we are each set loose in a knowingly chaotic world with no foundation--where every individual is set free on their own--how can we as individuals make sense of such a complex and specialized world?

I dont think we can.

Thus, perhaps the nihilism and moral relativity that abounds is but an extension of this? Maybe we are beginning to go beyond our own physical and social abilities as tribally-based primates, as we make society, science, and by its extension, life, more complex?

And I've had this idea of Baudrillard in my mind lately: cultural maoism essentially. I think its happening right now. We're seeing it with the internet. Essentially the world has become too specialized and complex for individuals, and its seems anonymous collective action might be the future. Just a bizarre rumination that frankly scares me.

 

[kmik]

Philosophy works brick by brick. One needs knowledge of Newtonian mechanics to understand relativity; you need to have read Kant to understand Schopenhauer. To read Derrida you need patience and knowledge of probably all western philosophy. To understand Hawking you need years of learning. And yet Derrida is a charlatan and the other is not - why?? It has nothing to do with the limits of philosophy or the social effects of this on individuals, its just like this ..

I don't understand this idea of Baudrillard so maybe you can elaborate.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

And I've had this idea of Baudrillard in my mind lately: cultural maoism essentially. I think its happening right now. We're seeing it with the internet. Essentially the world has become too specialized and complex for individuals, and its seems anonymous collective action might be the future. Just a bizarre rumination that frankly scares me.

This might interest you, written specifically about the effect of collectivism on the internet.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html

 

[judas69]

Establishing some sort of historical foundation between philosophers and writers of a now long gone era, probably constitutes the majority of philosophical focus and related discussion at the academic level; nothing but a history course with a little logic mixed in on the side. Philosophy thus, is now itself subject to the same cultural and interpretational bias as is national history, once you get passed all the blatant obscurities.

The rest, and what I feel is the deepest part of philosophy, is all presentation. People always want a good show first, which is exactly why it is so exaggerated and glorified, controversial all the while, never resolving a thing ..only creating more baggage to carry along the way.

Philosophy is not written for the "average man" because it begins at a level already irrelevant to the "average man". Philosophy as I've mentioned before I'm sure, is an intellectual game once the history lesson has ended.

 

[the phoenix]

Is not "the average man" an illusion?

The domain of philosophy continues to seep with pompous egocentrism and elitism, which is difficult to remove, because when speaking of things such as the meaning of life, one tends to craft a medium for one's message that conveys wisdom lest one not be taken seriously nor heard at all in the first place.

Big words have their place. I believe the appropriate use of language in philosophy is subjective, dependent on the greater context of a given philosophical text, where so many variables are at play. Linguistic expression is an art, and as the "meaning of life" is often subtly and delicately expressed in verse or riddle, because such is thought to be the best way to do so upon a given occasion, so too can any expression of philosophical truth only ever be a work of art.

The subject matter is essentially abstract, and I do not see the advantage in constricting the artist's palette to fall into line with scholastics, as if it would help us all discerningly rise Truth more quickly to the forefront of the marketplace of ideas. In a sense, it is not a matter of "should" but of "could", because sometimes one must adjust their writing style to be heard. In this case, fringe mediums of style had best support themselves to the effect of the clarity of expression of their own message, rather than complaining that scholastic norms are unfair. As Marshall McLuhan says, art is anything...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...that you can get away with.

 

[speed]

For Nile and Justin (a short book review on Heidegger): http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=12104

No personal thoughts on it, as I have not read the book being reviewed. However, I did enjoy the Borges allusion.

 

[speed]

I don't understand this idea of Baudrillard so maybe you can elaborate.

Poona has an excellent link on this. Essentially, think of Wikipedia. This is Maoism in its truest form. What is Wikipedia but an Anonymous collective encyclopedia? Anyone can contribute. Moderators occasionally clean things up. The individual disappears; hell there is no centralization; no fact checking; no anything but anonymous contribution. Baudrillard had such a premonition, especially when the internet came about, and thought our whole society would eventually resemble something akin to wikipedia.

So, its been an idea thats been rattling around in my head for awhile. Everyone is essentially educated more or less now (of course, most are not taught anything worthwhile or how to think, but thats another topic), and have access to the internet, media, etc. Anyone and everyone can contribute now; but this also brings the problem of such an abundance of thought and contribution, no one really stands out, or ones contribution is missed or a tiny footnote in another buried paper or study. And really, you gave an example kmik, there are so many bricks in philosophy now, one has to specialize in a field of philosophy, and such contributions said specialist makes, are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Few can really write or think from a comprehensive perspective on philosophy, like Kant or Nietszche or Russell did. So basically, the analogy I think of, is that we're turning into Ants: each providing a small piece of the puzzle, that seems meaningless individually. I guess it hits all fields and things. And Western culture is not set up as well as Eastern culture for such a transition. I think its one of the reasons the East will continue to pull ahead of the west.

 

[kmik]

The communist look, I think, is that it has always been like that. For the socialist, the origin of culture and intellectual thought is not from "upstairs" - the elite, bourgeoisie, the Kants and the Russels - but rather from "the people". Thus the look on culture is not different than what Tolstoy said on history (although I suppose it obeys some kind of laws in the dialectic tradition). That's why the opposition to the nation-state in general, because the state does not have to affirm with a specific cultural code but rather it belongs to "the people".

I think Wikipedia is very different than what I said. There is a difference between many people editing the article about Hitler and many people writing minor specialized articles.