4 ms·

Ha, great article. Makes me think back to the terribad philosophy classes (at least the softer, less mathy ones - the pure logic ones were fine) I had to sit t

Ha, great article. Makes me think back to the terribad philosophy classes (at least the softer, less mathy ones - the pure logic ones were fine) I had to sit through in college. My trick back then: whenever I read a paper/essay/book on any topic (particularly metaphysics), I always kept an informal tally of the percentage of argument devoted to arguing that someone else's definition of a term is "wrong." Generally speaking, that percentage is inversely proportional to the overall quality and relevance of the paper - there's no point listening to people argue whether God exists or not if they're merely redefining "God" turn-by-turn until they each prove their point! This obsession with arguing over definitions and attempting to answer ill-formed questions isn't limited to philosophy, though, it's quite rampant throughout most of the humanities world and even comes up more often than it should in sociology and psychology. Which is a shame - those are both fields where tangible advancements with real world consequences could probably be made, but mired as they are in soft thinking, where everyone can be right (or at least present arguments obscure or pointless enough to dodge criticism), they have a very long way to go. At least psychology is starting to give way to cognitive science, which may pick up some of the slack; I have yet to see any sign of future improvement in sociology.

msluyter 18y ago
The search for definitions goes back to Socrates -- What is Virtue? What is Justice? Etc... I hardly think this denotes bad philosophy.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  I agree with wittgenstein and the parent. most "philosophy" is arguing over vague definitions. The real meat of philosophy is arguing over axioms. Every system has presuppositions, those can be fruitfully argued about.
  - msluyter 18y ago
    _The real meat of philosophy is arguing over axioms._ Says whom? You're engaging in the very practice the parent is complaining about -- you're attempting to define philosophy in terms suitable to you. In other words, attempting to limit the domain of philosophy to exclude discussion of definitions is an attempt to define philosophy and thus a self-contradiction. This is all besides the point. The original article is a critique of obfuscatory academic writing, and I would assert that one can discuss semantics -- and philosophy generally -- without necessarily being obfuscatory.
    - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
      discussing semantics is distinct from say discussing how semantic differences across time influence thought. the former I would not define as philosophy, the latter I would. discussing semantics is very easy to categorize. I file it under "discussing semantics".
- Retric 18y ago
  Words, trying to suggest they have meaning beyond means of communication makes a huge assumption. PS: The idea that magic could work is linked to the assumption that words have power beyond what they do inside peoples heads. As computer people I would hope we can understand that power of "software" is all about moving electrons is some useful fashion. Talking about programs absent the compiler and hardware is missing the point.
cduan 18y ago
I actually attribute much of my writing skill to a college philosophy class. The reason was that our class paper assignments were not about arguing philosophical points. Our assignments were to summarize the arguments of philosophers. No personal opinions. Just summaries. Regardless of the substance of the course, the skill of digesting, analyzing, and summarizing the position of another is surprisingly valuable. It is also surprisingly difficult. Summarizing is difficult because it is too easy to mix up personal ideas with those of others. This tends to result in a mish-mash of words and ideas that don't fit together, resulting in the incomprehensible academic-speak complained of in the article. Summarizing is important because it is persuasive. If you can rephrase your opponents' views without bias or argument, and then build on those views to reach your conclusions, your opponents are much more likely to entertain and accept your conclusions, because they feel like their views have been fully heard. It is unfortunate that so much of writing focuses on making arguments, to the detriment of the equally important skill of understanding the arguments of others.

msluyter 18y ago

The search for definitions goes back to Socrates -- What is Virtue? What is Justice? Etc... I hardly think this denotes bad philosophy.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago
I agree with wittgenstein and the parent. most "philosophy" is arguing over vague definitions. The real meat of philosophy is arguing over axioms. Every system has presuppositions, those can be fruitfully argued about.
- msluyter 18y ago
  _The real meat of philosophy is arguing over axioms._ Says whom? You're engaging in the very practice the parent is complaining about -- you're attempting to define philosophy in terms suitable to you. In other words, attempting to limit the domain of philosophy to exclude discussion of definitions is an attempt to define philosophy and thus a self-contradiction. This is all besides the point. The original article is a critique of obfuscatory academic writing, and I would assert that one can discuss semantics -- and philosophy generally -- without necessarily being obfuscatory.
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    discussing semantics is distinct from say discussing how semantic differences across time influence thought. the former I would not define as philosophy, the latter I would. discussing semantics is very easy to categorize. I file it under "discussing semantics".
Retric 18y ago
Words, trying to suggest they have meaning beyond means of communication makes a huge assumption. PS: The idea that magic could work is linked to the assumption that words have power beyond what they do inside peoples heads. As computer people I would hope we can understand that power of "software" is all about moving electrons is some useful fashion. Talking about programs absent the compiler and hardware is missing the point.

cduan 18y ago

I actually attribute much of my writing skill to a college philosophy class. The reason was that our class paper assignments were not about arguing philosophical points. Our assignments were to summarize the arguments of philosophers. No personal opinions. Just summaries. Regardless of the substance of the course, the skill of digesting, analyzing, and summarizing the position of another is surprisingly valuable. It is also surprisingly difficult. Summarizing is difficult because it is too easy to mix up personal ideas with those of others. This tends to result in a mish-mash of words and ideas that don't fit together, resulting in the incomprehensible academic-speak complained of in the article. Summarizing is important because it is persuasive. If you can rephrase your opponents' views without bias or argument, and then build on those views to reach your conclusions, your opponents are much more likely to entertain and accept your conclusions, because they feel like their views have been fully heard. It is unfortunate that so much of writing focuses on making arguments, to the detriment of the equally important skill of understanding the arguments of others.