Not all Philosophy is Obscure and Difficult

Philosophy means a lot of different things depending on the people you ask. Often philosophy is used generically to mean some sort of meta-discussion, or a discussion connecting to some notion of meaning, usually the meaning of life. This use of philosophy has positive connotations. These discussions are generally happy and light, something like "My philosophy for keeping a clear head". But this isn't what philosophy has traditionally meant.

I must admit there is a big part of me that hates seeing philosophy used that way. I feel lost as I search around the internet looking for engaging content about philosophical matters just to find articles about seemingly unrelated things. Where has the discussion about fundamental matters gone? Where are the discussions of metaphysics, of ethics, of epistemology?

Academic Philosophy - Fancy Words to Sound Smart

While I am sad to see this use of philosophy so divorced from its roots, so unmoored from history or the discussions Socrates began in the West over 2000 years ago, I can't blame people for their lack of interest. By lack of interest, I don't mean we have somehow become and an uneducated society obsessed with self-help and cat photos instead of "more noble pursuits". I don't think this is true in the slightest. People are indeed interested in topics of a philosophical subject matter, but philosophy as a tradition, as an establishment, has left the average person out of such discussions.

Academic philosophy has an extremely negative perception and for good reason. Philosophers have adopted language which alienates outsiders; language which requires more than a dictionary to understand, language that obscures its meaning unless one has read the entire "canon" of philosophical works.

I hesitate to name names at this point, but to not do so would be dishonest. I am most primarily thinking of the continental tradition of philosophy that was ushered to the forefront by Immanuel Kant. Now please, if there are any Immanuel Kant fans reading this don't take offense, but it should be no surprise that Kant's work is obscure, even if it is full of useful insight. In fact, that is a well-recognized fact, even Schopenhauer says as much:

Because of his style which was obscure, Kant was properly understood by exceedingly few. And it is as if all the philosophical writers, who since Kant had had some success, had devoted themselves to writing still more unintelligibly than Kant. This was bound to succeed!

Ever since Kant, the continental tradition has focused on a writing style which excludes those who are not specialists, those who have not read all the background they need to. Philosophy has become that obscure writing, which is utterly incomprehensible but allegedly talks of deep features of the world, things too deep for words. Does it have to be this way?

Hope in Weird Places

Philosophy does not need to be this way and in fact, a large portion of it isn't. Are the topics of philosophy really beyond words? Is this obscure writing necessary to discuss these topics? Well, fortunately enough, there is another tradition in philosophy that avoids all of these problems, Analytic Philosophy.

Claiming that the Analytic Philosophy tradition is much clearer may seem to some like a strange thing to suggest. If they are familiar with the tradition at all, it is through its early practitioners, Russell and Wittgenstein. Russell was clear but discussed math all the time, hardly an approachable topic. Wittgenstein is incredibly difficult to read. The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is hardly a clear book, written in this strange "logical" form, the book is stilted and its point incredibly unclear.

But luckily for us, these early writers topics and styles do not define the norm for the tradition. Today, analytic philosophy boasts a great number of works, all written in a clear, but precise manner to talk about some of our most fundamental questions. Fantastic work has been done in all areas of philosophy in words accessible to diligent laymen.

Bring a Light to the Dark

While all these great works have been published, they continue to be unknown by the general public. Perhaps because they have been scared off by this perception of philosophy as an obtuse, inane ramblings. My hope with this series is that I can show that philosophy can be comprehensible. I want to show a side of philosophy most people don't see, a side that offers interesting, clear arguments that get to the heart of the issue.

Philosophy shouldn't be for the few, the elite. Seriously considering philosophical questions helps us a people to think better and more precisely. So, here is my plan with this series to contribute a bit to this discussion.

Plan of Action

1. Pick an academic philosophy paper (or book) to talk about.
2. Give some background to the topic being discussed
3. Right a summary of what the paper has to say
4. Connect this writing to past and future series posts

My plan of action is simple. It is simple because I think these texts are actually really understandable if only people took the time to read them. Academic papers aren't something to be scared of, but something to embrace and learn from. In fact, at the same time I'm posting this introduction, I've already posted the first part in the series: How a 3 Page Paper Overturned 2000 Years of Philosophy. See how even the simplest paper can challenge a deeply held belief about knowledge itself.