Some philosophers write for other philosophers, they don't have to be discernable by everyone. Is it fair to deride anything generally indiscernible as bullshit? It depends on how that activity, essay, book, treatise etc. is treated by well-versed critics or peers of that writer/philosopher. For example, I don't think differential equations or category theory can be grokked by everyone, and that's okay. Are these aspects bullshit simply because the majority of casual practitioners do not find them useful or practical? I would say no.
differential equations has direct applications for real world though . the difficulty is intrinsic to the math, not because it's trying to be obfuscatory
Why do you think philosophy doesn't have real world applications? Where do you think we get the socratic method or theoretical frameworks or thought experiments? I like this example, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton%27s_dome
I didn’t read much else on the blog, but the next article linked at the bottom had me drowning in the same word goulash flambé as this article admonishes.
Having said that, I don’t completely agree that one’s point always needs to be made concisely and efficiently.
There is something to be said about the value of prose sprinkled with meaning and truth or the other way round.
I quite like writing more and larger words than minimally required to articulate my conclusions.
5 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 22.2 ms ] threadHaving said that, I don’t completely agree that one’s point always needs to be made concisely and efficiently.
There is something to be said about the value of prose sprinkled with meaning and truth or the other way round.
I quite like writing more and larger words than minimally required to articulate my conclusions.