Language Use in Western Philosophy

[jacassidy2 0]

First, my thanks to forum member, “EWV,” for the suggestion of Mr. Peikoff's two lecture series' on the history of western philosophy. My modest awareness of the philosophers covered is much enhanced after studying these lectures. I also tried (again, because I had made unsuccessful attempts in my youth) to read a few of the more famous primary sources of Hume, Kant, Peirce, Russell and others. I was discouraged by the esoteric use of language in these writings and wanted to present my thoughts to see if there was any agreement with my conclusions among the people who read this forum.

In retirement I have re-studied Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I think it reads with a clear and precise use of language. I can't read it casually, but I think that anyone with even a modest education, and the right motivation, should be able to understand Miss Rand's analysis and arguments.

I cannot compliment the other philosophers I listed above for the clarity of their work. I have lots of trouble reading the majority of original philosophical works. The process usually goes like this:

I read a section and think, this seems important, but I'm not certain I understand what this guy is saying. So I fall back and read a commentary or two, study some more, (must have a dictionary too) and at some point the “light bulb” appears and usually I think two things. First, “he can't really mean that,” and then “I could have explained that same idea in plain language so that most people could understand it.”

Forget for now the irony of the problem that, once you think you have figured out what the guy meant, now you wonder if you're still mistaken in your study because what you think he's saying is so bizarre. (This was my assessment of Kant's Phenomenal vs. Noumenal world. I had to keep studying because I figured he couldn't just be going back to Plato.) Why do these guys use language in such a way as to make it so difficult to understand? I'm not talking only about translational or historic-cultural differences, I'm talking about using the language badly – and in more modern, peer-reviewed works, the editors must not think the use of language is that bad, so what does that say.

I raised this objection in a post on a more general philosophy forum. I ended the post with the opinion that if a reasonably motivated and modestly educated person couldn't understand what, say, C.S. Peirce had to say about epistemology, then what good was the truth or falsehood of his conclusions?

I received many responses and every one was of the same type. They all questioned my intellectual capacity, education, or motivation. One guy responded with this metaphor (I paraphrase); it seems like you're complaining about the steepness of the mountain you want to climb. Using Miss Rand's analysis of the Metaphysical vs. the Man-Made - I responded that the mountain he was using in his metaphor was not a feature created by geological forces, but by men, and I wondered about their purpose in making the mountain harder to climb than seemed necessary to me - I got no further responses.

In grad school, studying biology, we read style manuals and had classes in proper language form for peer-reviewed publication. Brevity and clarity were the goals.

So my question to you. Am I just being lazy in my complaints about philosophy writing? Surely Miss Rand and Mr. Peikoff cannot be the only ones who prize common language skills? And what would you say to the idea that philosophers (given the nature of their subject) should be even more motivated than natural scientists, to make their ideas accessible to people outside their profession? Thanks, Jack

[Arnold 0]

And what would you say to the idea that philosophers (given the nature of their subject) should be even more motivated than natural scientists, to make their ideas accessible to people outside their profession? Thanks, Jack

But that is the point. If they made their points clear you would understand them, and that would expose them - for the wool they were trying to pull over your eyes. I agree with you. If they can't make themselves clear, the fault lies with them. Ayn Rand saw through the BS Kant tried to slip by behind obscure language.

[jacassidy2 0]

Yea, that was my first thought too. But do you really believe that all these guys knew a truth that had yet to be revealed and used inefficient language to hide this fact? I think there's something going on, but I'm not convinced that it's a conspiracy. I think it's more likely that it is a sub-cultural thing about the element in which these guys found themselves (or find themselves today). Miss Rand's adverbs and adjectives when composing sentences about people like Kant, indicated that she thought there was an evil motivation inherent in the work. I wonder.

[Arnold 0]

Yea, that was my first thought too. But do you really believe that all these guys knew a truth that had yet to be revealed and used inefficient language to hide this fact? I think there's something going on, but I'm not convinced that it's a conspiracy. I think it's more likely that it is a sub-cultural thing about the element in which these guys found themselves (or find themselves today). Miss Rand's adverbs and adjectives when composing sentences about people like Kant, indicated that she thought there was an evil motivation inherent in the work. I wonder.

The evil may not be intentional as in a conspiracy, but look at my signature which recognizes the evil done in the name of good. I think her point was that if men like Kant couldn't see that what they proposed was evil (elite minds have no excuse), it was evasion and rationalization, not error. Ask yourself why they made no attempt to clearly explain their ideas if they thought they could stand scrutiny. I myself consider that evasion as the evil behind the poisonous ideas they put forward.

[JohnRgt 0]

The language is bad enough. The part I love is that they use one set of metaphysics and epistemology to "validate" their ethics, another to infer their politics.

[William W. Kaufmann 0]

First, my thanks to forum member, EWV, for the suggestion of Mr. Peikoff's two lecture series' on the history of western philosophy. My modest awareness of the philosophers covered is much enhanced after studying these lectures. I also tried (again, because I had made unsuccessful attempts in my youth) to read a few of the more famous primary sources of Hume, Kant, Peirce, Russell and others. I was discouraged by the esoteric use of language in these writings and wanted to present my thoughts to see if there was any agreement with my conclusions among the people who read this forum.

In retirement I have re-studied Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I think it reads with a clear and precise use of language. I can't read it casually, but I think that anyone with even a modest education, and the right motivation, should be able to understand Miss Rand's analysis and arguments.

I cannot compliment the other philosophers I listed above for the clarity of their work. I have lots of trouble reading the majority of original philosophical works. The process usually goes like this:

I read a section and think, this seems important, but I'm not certain I understand what this guy is saying. So I fall back and read a commentary or two, study some more, (must have a dictionary too) and at some point the light bulb appears and usually I think two things. First, he can't really mean that, and then I could have explained that same idea in plain language so that most people could understand it.

Forget for now the irony of the problem that, once you think you have figured out what the guy meant, now you wonder if you're still mistaken in your study because what you think he's saying is so bizarre. (This was my assessment of Kant's Phenomenal vs. Noumenal world. I had to keep studying because I figured he couldn't just be going back to Plato.) Why do these guys use language in such a way as to make it so difficult to understand? I'm not talking only about translational or historic-cultural differences, I'm talking about using the language badly and in more modern, peer-reviewed works, the editors must not think the use of language is that bad, so what does that say.

I raised this objection in a post on a more general philosophy forum. I ended the post with the opinion that if a reasonably motivated and modestly educated person couldn't understand what, say, C.S. Peirce had to say about epistemology, then what good was the truth or falsehood of his conclusions?

I received many responses and every one was of the same type. They all questioned my intellectual capacity, education, or motivation. One guy responded with this metaphor (I paraphrase); it seems like you're complaining about the steepness of the mountain you want to climb. Using Miss Rand's analysis of the Metaphysical vs. the Man-Made - I responded that the mountain he was using in his metaphor was not a feature created by geological forces, but by men, and I wondered about their purpose in making the mountain harder to climb than seemed necessary to me - I got no further responses.

In grad school, studying biology, we read style manuals and had classes in proper language form for peer-reviewed publication. Brevity and clarity were the goals.

So my question to you. Am I just being lazy in my complaints about philosophy writing? Surely Miss Rand and Mr. Peikoff cannot be the only ones who prize common language skills? And what would you say to the idea that philosophers (given the nature of their subject) should be even more motivated than natural scientists, to make their ideas accessible to people outside their profession? Thanks, Jack

I understand what you are saying. The problem is philosophy is the study of thinking. How to think. As such it requires the student to think beyond just accepting what he is being taught. He needs to not only follow the reasoning, including checking the premises, but criticise with his own reasoning. Now the other side of this is that philosophers may SEEM cryptic but only because the reader or student doesnt get what the problem is the philosopher us trying to solve. Kant for example can be understood as trying to redeem philosophy from empiricist skepticism. His solution was brilliant. And wrong. You need to get ahold of the history of philosophy to get his philosophy. It is cryptic but a convoluted way of saying something quite interesting from his context. The problem is like trying to read and understand an article on warm vs coldblooded animals when you are still trying to learn the concepts being used and why they are important

That being said many philosophers ARE vague. Some are intentionally so. I would say. Others are unclear since they pose questions and di so in such a way they cannot be answered .

As in the poorly defined problem of free will. They cant answer it becsuse they presuppose a method and premises that make it impossible

William W Kaufmann