3 ms·
And French! E.g. John Searle's comment on Michel Focault, > 'Don't be ambiguous', 'don't be too wordy, be brief', 'be orderly' and 'avoid obscurity' are the fo
by vilhelm_s 9y ago
And French! E.g. John Searle's comment on Michel Focault,
> 'Don't be ambiguous', 'don't be too wordy, be brief', 'be orderly' and 'avoid obscurity' are the four Maxim's of manner. And I think those are frequently violated. In fact, there are certain schools of philosophy---not once I'm sympathetic with---where they are more or less systematically violated. I don't know if I've told you this story but I once had a conversation with a famous French philosopher who's a friend of mine and I said to him "Why the hell do you write so badly, pourquoi écris-tu si mal", and he said, "Look, if I wrote as clearly as you do people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously. You know, they would think it's childlike and naive." [...] In France you got to have 10% incomprehensible otherwise people won't think it's deep. (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_and_the_obscurantism_in_french_philosophy.html http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_a...)
I think this is one of the great contributions of the anglophone academic sphere, the idea that you should try to aim to be easy to understand.
- FoeNyx 9y agoBut, in the article, the "bad examples" he gave, some real people wrote them. If you had to write back to such people with "bare" English, wouldn't they judge you as "childlike and naive" too? Isn't it necessary to adapt your phrasing to your target? (I thought it worked this way in any language)