Is there a set standard on how to avoid using obfuscating language? What are they if they do exist in philosophy. In the natural science, there are certain standards writers and editors of scientific articles adhere to, and I remember there was a lot of backlash against philosophers such as Hegel and Heidegger for allegedly purposely using obfuscating language.
Asked
Active
Viewed 168 times
0
-
1Obfuscation is in the eye of the beholder, one man's obfuscation is another man's depth. There are no "standards" for it either in science or in philosophy, which is why complaints, fair or not, usually come after publication. There are stylistic and expository suggestions that reviewers often make on peer review, both in science and philosophy, but they are not working from any standards. Hegel and Heidegger died long before you were born, so what you are remembering is not a backlash, and may not be that different from undergrads complaining about math when they are not getting it. – Conifold Aug 23 '20 at 03:32
-
Yes. We should eschew obfuscatory locutions at all times! – user4894 Aug 23 '20 at 03:45
-
There is a general rubric that philosophical writing should be 'clear, complete, and concise', but the three principles often work against each other. Being complete sometimes means over-explaining; being clear sometimes means making fine and novel distinctions that call for odd uses of conventional language. Part of the art of reading philosophy is seeing the distinction between someone with a clear idea which doesn't express well in language vs someone with a confused welter of ideas who is flailing about in language. – Ted Wrigley Aug 23 '20 at 14:36
-
Philosophy is largely conducted in natural language. In English, a classic among English teachers is Elements of Style by Strunk and White. – J D Aug 23 '20 at 15:28