Monday, April 23, 2007
In-der-Blog-sein
Stephen Law interviews Nigel Warburton, who demonstrates how to use the ad hominem to bring clarity to philosophy.
Stephen Law interviews Nigel Warburton, who demonstrates how to use the ad hominem to bring clarity to philosophy.
Some writers write Philosophy as if they were paid by the syllable with bonus payments for including untranslated Latin. They also use jargon which may or may not clarify meaning. For a spectacular example of obscurity through excessive use of jargon, see Martin Heidegger's Being and Time (almost any page).And ends with this bit of tu quoque.
Don't bullshit. Most people know when they are doing it. If you don't, you are probably in the wrong subject.Q.E.D. ¶ 7:42 AM
Comments:
<< Home
In my opinion, the accusations of obfuscation in Heidegger's works are the result of deep misunderstanding of his thought, what is even more clearly visible in his later books, especially Beitrage zur Philosophie - vom Ereignis, which is not "about" Being but rather "from" Being as fugues. In such an approach to the thinking it is simply impossible to express the thoughts in the words which are clear for everyone. The misunderstanding is yet more visible if we read about "argumentation". That completely doesn't fit to Heidegger's way of thinking, at least in traditional meaning of "argumentation". That is what Heidegger somewhat criticized - the presentational thinking of traditional metaphysics based on objects, object-subject relationship, argumentations, proofs etc...
I could paraphrase the sentence from the article:
Clarity is important in Philosophy because life is short.
into:
Clarity at all costs can be an obstacle and shouldn't be the main aim in Philosophy because life is short.
Best regards,
Adam
I could paraphrase the sentence from the article:
Clarity is important in Philosophy because life is short.
into:
Clarity at all costs can be an obstacle and shouldn't be the main aim in Philosophy because life is short.
Best regards,
Adam
Interesting use of the term 'paraphrase'...I'm glad you think my misunderstanding of Heidegger is deep, though - or should I 'paraphrase' that as shallow?
# posted by 
: 5:49 AM
: 5:49 AM
I didn't attack you personally. I am only convinced we can find the explanation of Heidegger's obfuscation in his later works. If you felt offended I apologize for that, It wasn't my intention.
I realize the problem itself will be always an apple of discord between analytic and continental philosophers. I found the interview very valuable but in the case of Heidegger a kind of jump into another thinking has to be done. It's a jump into obfuscation at the same time. One has to reconcile to that I think... Best wishes.
I realize the problem itself will be always an apple of discord between analytic and continental philosophers. I found the interview very valuable but in the case of Heidegger a kind of jump into another thinking has to be done. It's a jump into obfuscation at the same time. One has to reconcile to that I think... Best wishes.
I'm sure there is something of value in Heidegger's work. I only pointed out his tendency to obfuscation through jargon... which I'd have thought would be hard to deny. And I only mentioned Being and Time.
# posted by : 3:46 PM
: 3:46 PM
There are several issues in play here.
One, is Heidegger obfuscating, or just not very good at expressing himself?
Two, is Heidegger using jargon, where more common words would express his intent better, or is he genuinely dealing with new concepts that require new words?
Three, is the problem with Heidegger, or with the translations?
Given that, wouldn't it be more reasonable to pick an example closer to home? For example, the Principia Mathematica (untranslated Latin alert!). How does it rate in terms of clarity, when several years of specialized study are required read it?
Heidegger is the most cited XXth century philosopher, so whether one understands and agrees with him, or not, many philosophers consider him clear enough to be worth commenting on.
Post a Comment
One, is Heidegger obfuscating, or just not very good at expressing himself?
Two, is Heidegger using jargon, where more common words would express his intent better, or is he genuinely dealing with new concepts that require new words?
Three, is the problem with Heidegger, or with the translations?
Given that, wouldn't it be more reasonable to pick an example closer to home? For example, the Principia Mathematica (untranslated Latin alert!). How does it rate in terms of clarity, when several years of specialized study are required read it?
Heidegger is the most cited XXth century philosopher, so whether one understands and agrees with him, or not, many philosophers consider him clear enough to be worth commenting on.
<< Home
