I read and responded to a thread by “Guide” that basic question
was "What does pre-Kantian mean?
and as I thought about it, I wondered why did “Guide” used the
words that he used… in other words, I wonder if he… (big word warning)
“obfuscate” his post or did he “elucidate” his post? and if, either one,
why?
In other words, he may have used english, but he didn’t make
his point clearly, and why didn’t he make his point clear?
I believe he “obfuscated” his point… render his point to be obscure,
but why?
At this point, we return to past philosophers like Kant and Hegel…
reading either one is notoriously difficult because of the language both
used… Read Kant in the english translation and you are still looking
for the english translation… apparently from those who can read both
German and English, it is easier to read Kant in English then in German
because of the way both languages are structured…
but why would one want to make obscure one’s point instead of
making it clear?
I read once, somewhere a long time ago, that it was Einstein, I think it
was Einstein, who said, that if you can’t make a statement that is understood
by an “average” person, the reason might be because you don’t really understand
the statement yourself…the reason to make it obscure is to hide this fact…
so you might sound important or scientific or philosophical or actually have some
knowledge or facts or wisdom that make you smarter then anyone reading it…
but the truth is by not simplifying your points into something the average person
can understand or in my case, I write so the average 10 grader can understand
my point…by not simplifying your points, you admit that you don’t actually
understand your statements…the wife is home, catch you later…
K: so, after talking to the wife… and taking a walk with the wife,
and then taking a nap with the wife, actual real live nap, the wife is
still asleep, soooooooooooo where was I?
so, I wonder if any will accuse me of making the statement that
“guide” really doesn’t know what he is talking about?
not at all… Guide was simply a random person who happened
to stumble into my path while I had been thinking about this for some time…
are the philosophical points there to try to impress people, or are you actually
trying to hide your lack of philosophical insight, or are you actually
trying to make a real philosophical point, either to yourself, which I often
do, or try to make a general philosophical point to any who might understand it…
motives are often at the heart of what we do…the why is as often as important
as the what… what did you say as oppose to why did you say it as oppose to
how did you say it?
the basic rules of journalism apply to philosophy…
the article must answer 6 basic points…
who, what, when, how, where and why…
every time you listen to the media, regardless of the medium,
these 6 points must be answered…
now transfer these basic points to philosophy…
Who, what, when, how, where and why…
in fact, all communication made between people, must answer
one or more of these basic points…
in fact, think of our disciplines like history or economics or sociology,
must in fact answer these questions also… as must philosophy…
and fiction… think of a book, Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” it too tells us
of the basic points of journalism… the who, what, when, how, where and why…….
you can think of fiction writing as “creative journalism”
now, what of poetry? quite often poetry will not answer all of these basic points…
but poetry is not really about information as much as creating a mood within a person……
poetry is often not interested in in giving much information outside of how the poet
was feeling at that time…would journalism be of much use if it was simply about
how the journalist felt about such matters as tax cuts or gun control?
would philosophy be of much use if it was simply about how a philosopher
felt about the metaphysical questions about being or understanding
things that do not change? journalism and philosophy and history must
be about more impersonal matters unlike poetry which is about personal matters……
quite often historians like Toynbee and Gibbon did make their personal feelings
known about certain historical events…… Toynbee especially was famous
for his personal comments about historical events…as he was a religious
person, everything that he wrote was infused by his religious feelings and he
judge historical events by his religious feelings…but, but did that
personal religious judging by his feelings affect his historical writings?
YES, yes it did… and it has been commented on by much smarter people then
me…
so should philosophical writers judge philosophical matters by their
own personal feelings, be it religious or social or political?
and can you escape writing about philosophical matters within
your own personal feelings be it religious or social or political?
ask yourself…
Kropotkin