Why do modern philosophers write in such a dull, drawn-out style?
Most of the philosophy I’ve read could be stated in probably five pages. Yet much of it is drawn out over 50+ pages. Is there a reason philosophers don’t just state their points and be done with it? Are they trying to make their arguments airtight so that they don’t have to write as many responses to criticism?
Tags: drawnout, dull, Modern, Philosophers, style, such, write
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
u know what…i have always wondered that! Their material is so dry!!!
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 pm
They can’t publish a 5 page book. Like any good student they add enough fluff to meet the papers requirements. Besides they have to make a living somehow why not by wasting your time?
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:33 pm
i think they do it because they know that most if not all philosophical questions have no answer so they bullshit for 50 pages to basically say they have no damn clue. if they take a stance on a subject they add in the reasons why they believe the way they do and why they don’t believe the other way and then account for counter examples and shyt like that or just at least in some way to to make their belief justified.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
I think you are partially right with the last thing you said. they don’t wanna get misinterpreted and are trying to cover all their bases, so they may repeat things more than once and write out exactly what they mean with the relevant terms in the paper, etc. also, i believe they want to make it clear to the layman reader, in addition to their professional philosopher peers. it would cut out as many criticisms as possible. thus saving their own time and energy in responding to them, as well as other philosophers efforts in writing them.
of course this all depends on the philosopher, but yeah i realize that most contemporary philosophical essays don’t have much humor in them. philosophy papers are very scientific in form. its like complaining that scientific papers are so dull. why should philosophy be especially entertaining? like science, it deals with complicated theoretical issues
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Any reasonable philosophy or major philosophical work has a major theme or thought, which may be clearly stated in a few words.
Any philosophy is an opinion, not a proof. It is an argument, which utility typically relates to the coinciding of the premises of the philosopher and the reader.
It is in the application of a given notion or position or project, where, as you suggest, the expansion occurs.
“A Philosophy of Universality,” O. M. Aivanhov,
“Nihilism,” Father Seraphim Rose,
“The Path of the Higher Self,” Mark Prophet.
Reviews at http://www.amazon.com
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 pm
First, let’s differentiate: an argument presented in an article usually isn’t the size of a book. It’s usually not much longer than a scientific paper. It usually isn’t just stating and re-stating the position.
Contemporary philosophers usually do state their argument clearly. However, they have to go about defending each and every premise. This requires predicting possible objections and refuting them. It isn’t about having to write responses to criticism; it’s to keep that criticism from arising in the first place, and later only having to respond to possible arguments that they didn’t predict.
One place where this doesn’t happen much–but that you don’t see very often–is when the writer is proving and advocating an entire philosophical system. Doing such a thing requires explaining many related, but different, ideas, as well as showing how they tie together. There’s so much content that even describing it quickly may simply be impossible.