| Complexity and language: It is always funny how long boring sentences are found in philosophy. I think the problem is that our language is lacking in clarity for describing the subtle nuances of reasoning and logic. And sadly it is a bit confusing. Especially if one (like me), does not know all the people listed in the paragraphs. Personally I tend to shorten the sentences and focus on the presentation of the information in logical blocks. While it may not read as glorious, it can improve the clarity of the information. Maybe this tendency is related to my background in programming. What problems did Foucault try to solve? And I think that your statement is related to the differences in problems that Foucault tried to solve, and problems that we face now. In his culture people believed that personal traits were related to skull shapes. So the idea that these facts about skull shapes do not really matter, seems very reasonable. Especially we now know that this does not relate at all. So, the "facts" are related to "beliefs" that give certain values to those "facts". In science we would call those beliefs "models". And while well tested, they have some limits that are relevant. Pseudo-philosophy or different belief systems? Some philosophy wants to avoid "facts", here called pseudo-philosophy. But often they do not deny the "facts", but have complete different "beliefs" in which the "facts" do not have the same meaning. The writer of the article wants to downgrade the "false beliefs" as "pseudo-philosophy". But as a solution, I prefer to look at the limits of the beliefs (or models) that are held on to. This is for both true beliefs and "false beliefs". Talking about limitations gives an opportunity for dialogs and understanding different sides. People don't feel attacked but feel that they can contribute to mutual knowledge. And regarding scientific beliefs/models, we may find problems with them, which is essential for scientific progress. |
When you read incomprehensible gobbledygook, it is because the author is being lazy, at best. At worst it is a deliberate attempt to appear as if making a complex point, while saying nothing. Verbose and opaque writing can make one appear intelligent and be a shield from criticism. (If you don't understand me, it's because you aren't smart enough, and until you understand you aren't allowed to criticize.)
Remember, the burden is on the author to be clear and understandable. If they can't be bothered to make the effort, you are under no obligation to believe a single word.