Why is obscurantism so common in philosophy?

Why is obscurantism so common in philosophy?

I don't think most philosophers make themselves difficult to understand on purpose. It's more that when you have philosophical ideas that you take seriously and you've argued them with others on a number of occasions you start to get more nuanced and complicated for the sake of accounting for all the little details other people will find fault with you in if you don't account for them.

Because there is no single standard of critics to weed it out.

t. brainlet
Just because you haven't taken the time to understand a certain philosopher doesn't mean they are purposefully making it hard for you to understand. Although there are exceptions.

Underrated explanation.

Well said. I'm definitely no philosopher, no more than your average individual is, but while it'll often seem pretentious in its wording, it's important to use your words cautiously so as not leave any ambiguity at all insofar as it's possible to do so.

It can make you appear like an academic elitist, or some other such sort of intellectual, whose words may, or may not mean anything, but they sound fanciful, and enigmatic, so they give the false impression of being true, and/or thoughtfully used to more than a few who aren't either accommodated to particular ways of speaking/writing, and/or aren't the type of person who thinks introspectively.

iswydt

There are loads of exceptions though

To keep the plebeians from knowing too much.

This. It's all just pretend, especially with continental "philosophy"

Here you have posted Wittgenstein who writes about philosophy of language in an easy to grasp way with lots of examples about how meaning arises out of situations.

The problems start when one tries to build ones own super special metaphysics, just making up new words as you go along, like Heidegger, or using words to mean things they don't mean elsewhere like Kant.

I think branding your own metaphysics like this is so people know when you are being used at a later date, which is all tied back to academic prestige and funding.

tl:dr - Gots to have a catch phrase to make it in philosophy world.

Name 20 philosophers doing this.

The fact that you misinterpreted his post is so ironic and hilarious.

>C is the speed of light.

No, C is C and light just typically moves at C.

Literally any french 20th century french "scholar", most german idealists and phenomenologists (although most of them were autists so they couldn't really help it), most american cultural theorists, and so on, you know, the kind of shit you probably read. Here you go, 200 philosophers doing it.

But did I? We may never know.

t. logical positivist

if you write like a normal person people won't believe you and call you a retard even tho you have good points and might be right

remember people are douchebags who work like dogs, you need to intimidate them because if they dont think you are their superior they will bash you to death with inane bullshit that doesn't address your points

They all think they are the center of the world for some reason and that everyone and everything else is wrong and retarded

The fact that you misinterpreted relativity is so ironic and hilarious.

>typically

Always

Depends on the medium.

Light slows down when traveling through water for example.

Not really slows down. It has to do with how light interacts with matter and many other things. But strictly speaking, light always moves at C.

I know fuck all about philosophy (past what I learned in PHIL 101 as an undergrad) but this is reaaaally prevalent in archaeology and anthropology. In linguistics it's understandable because they often are working with pretty technical material, but it's inexcusable in cultural anthro and archaeology.

It's frustrating, too, because a lot of this stuff is actually worthwhile research, not meaningless bullshit -- although some of that absolutely does get published -- but the good shit is often indistinguishable from the bullshit because both equally read as though the authors were given a handful of darts and told "Throw these at your thesaurus. If you don't use EVERY WORD YOU HIT, you'll never get tenure."

>But strictly speaking, light always moves at C.
That's wrong retard. It moves at C in a vacuum.

Go away.

How do I know all your knowledge from physics comes from popsci retardation?

Okey then, explain to me what is a vacuum at quantum level and how does it affect the overal phase velocity of a photon then you moron.

Open a book and look up permeability and impedance of mediums you chucklefuck.

We don't take kindly to science people here

I'm talking about the actual quantum interaction you retard. Those are macroscopic phenomenon but not the actual "mechanism" which mediates light.

You're wrong chucklefuck, put your tail between your legs and go away, shifting the goal posts won't accomplish anything.