Conversation

It feels like their method of thinking is corrupted in some deep way? It's pretty subtle, but academic philosophers seem to think in ways that lead to *less* clarity, while framing this as virtue. It feels like they're "performing thinking"; doing things that resemble thoughts.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @Aella_Girl and @LooraKennedy
Would you mind expanding on this? Is it unpleasant because you find that they make serious philosophical mistakes or because they engage with philosophy in an annoying/pedantic way?
21
206
My less-than-charitable interpretation is they're put into a system that incentivizes for prestige and respect; to be a good philosopher is to 'look like' a good philosopher, and good philosophers have dusty tomes and refer to elaborate concepts mere mortals can't understand.
5
84
Focus is placed on figuring out what older philosophers thought, and using complicated, inaccessible terminology. I distrust this; if your words are complicated and inaccessible, your thoughts must be an absolute mess. Clarity keeps you grounded, but alas, it's not prestigious.
8
116
Replying to
I think if you take into account the near-historical role (or at least in post-WWII times) of academia as being more about social signaling, then this makes a whole lot of sense. The jargonizing of it all is basically meant to be a social marker, something exclusive.
Replying to
something definitely happened postwar (ww1+2); prewar most recognized philosophers were polymaths and had interests in the natural sciences and mathematics, often making significant contributions in those fields few if any were “just” philosophers
1
Replying to
I certainly agree that the incentives can lead academic philosophers to adopt ways of expressing themselves that run contrary to clear/good thinking. But I'm not so sure that this phenomenon should lead one to think that the average (analytic) philosopher is bad thinker.
1
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show