[lqet]

The style of this article reminds me of Wittgenstein: short, clinical, almost mathematical statements, with no poetical ambition whatsover. I understand that there might be situations in which such a style is appropriate, but this article is just very annoying to read. I would not definitely not call it "good writing".

The kind of "clarity" presented here as good writing works well if you assume that everything that can be thought can be directly expressed in words, without substantial loss. This is clearly not the case. Language is a very poor medium to transmit throughts and feelings. So the "trick" every good writer uses is this: don't describe something directly, but instead try to construct some secondary clues, hints and a general atmosphere that will start a thought process in the reader's mind which leads to the conclusions you want to bring across. This is the poetic approach, it could also simply be called "writing between the lines".

In my experience, this approach is a much more effective transmitter of ideas than trying to describe them directly, also for the simple reason that the reader will subconsiously assume that it is his own idea.

You need beautiful prose, rhythm and images to achieve that, as those open up this additional dimension. The article undertakes considerable (even pedantic) effort to leave that dimension closed.

[mudita]

Just as an aside: This seems like a very unfair characterisation of Wittgenstein to me. His writing can be almost mathematical, but it can also be very poetic, playful and funny. Appreciating his writing might be a matter of taste, but it seems clear to me that his writing had a lot of "poetical ambition". How we use language was one of his primary concerns and he clearly cared a lot about how he himself wrote. In Philosophische Untersuchungen I see a lot of warmth in his writing. Often it seems like he is talking very personally to the reader like he would to a friend.

From quick googling it seems like I am not alone in my view of Wittgenstein as a poetic philosopher, see e.g.

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019...

https://www.uib.no/en/news/101796/wittgenstein-poetic-philos...

[davidivadavid]

Chiming in — Wittgenstein has some of the most creative, enlightening and unexpectedly funny metaphors in all of literature.

[lqet]

True, I might have been a bit unfair to him above. I mainly based my comment on my reading of the Tractatus logico-philosophicus, which I remember as being written extremely dry and in a similar style as the article. I have not read anything else by Wittgenstein (yet).

[martingoodson]

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.