I love Ulysses and metafiction in general, but when people apply this kind of writing style to philosophy it drives me a bit up the wall. Philosophy at the end of the day is about arguing a point; it isn't about producing an aesthetic experience.
So why would you abuse your reader by making it a pain in the ass to figure out what you mean? I know there are some fancy arguments around stretching limits of language, but none of them seemed all that sensible to me. The only advantage I see to obscurantist writing is that it makes it impossible to critique the philosophers work. Any critique will just be met by the response that you didn't fully understand the author's argument. The Searle/Derrida debates are a great example of this. The upshot is that people spend all their time debating what you actually mean. Which I guess is good for the philosopher's brand, but doesn't advance knowledge much.
This isn't to say that you can't have beautiful writing in philosophy. I think Gaston Bachelard is a great example of both an elegant writer and a clear writer.
That being said, people really really love GEB, so it probably is worth reading regardless of these misgivings. One of these days I'll get to it.
> So why would you abuse your reader by making it a pain in the ass to figure out what you mean?
I think this statement is both wrong and irrelevant.
Wrong: if you look into GEB, you notice that is has many chapters. And each chapter works on some topic --- and the chapters itself aren't a pain in the ass to figure out what they mean. Not at all. Each chapter transports its goal quite nicely and timely.
Irrelevant: this book is not an academical paper. It's a book meant to amuse you, to enlighten you, to sharpen your thinking skills. An academic paper describing just how Gödel's work works can be a *LOT* thinner --- but, usually, is also a lot dryer.
It's actually the case that this book gives you many good things that help you to understand (and accept or dismiss) such academic papers easier. But even here, mind the "many", if you expect "all" from the book, then you'll be dissatisfied.
I also wouldn't say that GEB is a philosophical book, at least not in the way modern philosophy is understood. If you see it as a book dedicated to like ("philo") wisdom ("sophie"), then it is. But so are most after books in the IT field.
> So why would you abuse your reader by making it a pain in the ass to figure out what you mean?
A psychonaout or a shaman would argue some insights are only available on a drug infused spiritual trip.
Musicians talk of flow.
That state of discombobulation you dislike is not to meant to furnish you with answers but rather with new dots to notice and connect on your own. Not everything is a mathematical proof.
I think the real reason this sort of style isn't attractive is because many try to emulate it who lack the talent and then it truly is noise. It is a lot to ask from a reader and the value is rarely there that is well observed.
But sometimes the payoff is worth it. GBE resonates with a lot of people.
Hahah the whole point of op is that there is value in not always having a point, but meandering, especially for techies. Are you set an proving him right?
I think it'd be more fair to say that GEB is just philosophical navel-gazing with the appearance of some deep philosophical truth... When the actual truth is they cheaped out on editorial staff :D
I got it, and read a portion of it. It was a meandering and badly written mess with no point. It felt like Seinfeld in science-ish form.
I can imagine it being received differently today, but I read it twice in the 80s. It blew my mind. Now you can’t swing a stick without hitting some referent or concept in its pages, but that’s the internet age, efficiently routing the arcane to hypernerds worldwide. It’s made the whole world boring.
Thanks for the context. I'd recently tried reading GEB but couldn't get into it much since I already knew the formal version of the concepts it discusses about. I also have experience of an earlier time when expert knowledge was much less accessible, and where I treasured books like this that tried to compress every ambition within them, since they brought a lot of threads for further edification together in them.
Do you have substantive critique? Because the fellow you're responding to is giving substance to his criticism, the parent comment is giving substance, the article is giving substance, and whether GEB has substance is apparently up for debate. If the person you're replying to is deadset on proving the parent right, you are dead set on proving nothing. Please tell us what you disagree with, and the particulars of why, or maybe leave the discussion to the adults.
OP: In that regard, both books are good for techies to read because every now and then it's good to read something that drags you out of your comfort zone and futzes around in all kinds of obscure nooks and crannies before getting to the mother fucking point -- if indeed it ever does. Getting to the point can be important, but there is more to life (and literature).
Commentor: Philosophy at the end of the day is about arguing a point; it isn't about producing an aesthetic experience. (Even though this statement directly against original post, it's so obvious to author that he does not feel the need to explain, but goes on a tangent how bad the writing is)
Me: Hahah the whole point of op is that there is value in not always having a point, but meandering...
Response: It was a meandering and badly written mess with no point.
Me: ...
You: Leave it to the adults.
Me: ...
You: You're not making a point!!!
(Considering the nature of the first comment and assuming you didnt do it on purpose, you ending with blaming me I'm not making a point is poetic to be honest)
I don't consider "there is value in not always having a point, but meandering" to be itself a point, mainly because you don't give a reason to suppose that that is the case or a reasonable case to consider. It seems itself to be rather meandering, circling a value and a raison d'etre without specifying either. It's the specification that makes it worth considering, as adults do know.
Ah, nobody reads Kant anymore; and even if they do, they tend to read just the first critique, stick to the analytic and focus on the "important" sections. You have to read the whole thing! And then, if you're so privileged, and you have to time, nothing is more fruitful than going on towards the Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals, and the Critique of the Power of Judgement. And once you've read that last book, maybe you will begin to understand Derrida. Or even better, you will begin to understand how to critique him.
Philosophy is defined by the human experience, it is asking questions that do not have readily proveable answers, of answers that are heavily contextual to the individual. The probability of the answers weighed in the individuals head. These probabilities and likeliness to believe more of one philosophy over the other is often primarily from the details.
Details are important because they are little parts that support the likelihood of the larger point being true. If the details don't work it's likely because the theory is innacurate.
> Philosophy at the end of the day is about arguing a point; it isn't about producing an aesthetic experience.
I'd argue that point. Nietzsche's "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) comes to my mind first. Art contains and conveys truth.
Nietzsche's work is also a good example about why it's foolish to argue too much about what an author meant. He wasn't always clear in his thoughts - just like us all - and his thinking changed considerably anyway.
> Philosophy at the end of the day is about arguing a point; it isn't about producing an aesthetic experience.
So why would you abuse your reader by making it a pain in the ass to figure out what you mean?
This is a funny thing to say about a discipline that was more or less founded by Plato, who was notably obscurantist if not outright esoteric.
In any case, philosophy is not always about making a point and there is not always a point to be made. Sometimes it's just asking questions.
This hasn't been my experience of Plato at all. I've always found his dialogs to be written with a surprising clarity. Is there a work in particular you're thinking of?
When philosophy starts with a real observation (...then words, then discussion), obscurantism is appropriate and expected. Because words can only fit a real observation badly.
When philosophy starts with words, a clear point is expected, for the obvious reasons.
What part of Plato are you referring to? Republic is honestly written at a 10th grade English reading level. The most esoteric work of Plato is Timaeus, but most people do not see that as a foundational text in Western philosophy.
First, the "reading level" of Plato depends on the translation, but that's not what I"m talking about. The way most people are exposed to Plato, they're assigned to read his most straight forward texts, but his dialogues are full of mysticism and ideas that he only hints at in the dialogues (particularly in Timaeus and Parminedes) which his students expanded on later. Plato was skeptical of the written word as a means of transmitting ideas and sort of held some ideas back exclusively for his students at the academy who continued to develop them.
platon didn't speak english, because english wouldn't exist for fifteen more centuries, so he didn't write the republic at any english reading level. the various english translations of it vary greatly in their clarity and readability
i agree that the timaios is platon's most esoteric surviving work, and it's full of enormous amounts of nonsense, but i think it's still reasonably clearly written. sadly, it is a foundational text in not only western philosophy but eastern philosophy as well, and it took twenty centuries for most thinkers to reject most of its erroneous dogmas
This. Philosophy is the grandparent of math. And if there is a point to math, then that there always has to be a proofable point.
I think the problem is a cultural conflict between sub-concious problemsolvers and "concious" problem solvers. The later expect a algorithm , step by step instruction from the former, who when this is demanded, use there subconcious to produce a plausible story. When asked for there inspirations to deduce the process yourself, you get a crows nest of shiny things, bits and pieces, not making a reasonable whole - but they infuriatingly at the end of day do.
Why not accept that there are things you can not directly communicate with and if you are hellbent on becoming such a thing, there is no step-by-step instruction.
> I know there are some fancy arguments around stretching limits of language, but none of them seemed all that sensible to me.
Did you read Robert Kegan "The Evolving Self"? It was pretty popular at HN some time ago. Robert Kegan stretching limits of language and he's got a reason: he introduces some notions like "culture of embeddedness" that you just can't define in a way like dictionaries do, one cannot simply get to a point. Kegan uses another approach, he gives his reader an experience that makes her to understand "culture of embeddedness".
Philosophy by definition deals with uncategorised (or poorly categorised) aspects of our world, with aspects that have no good language to talk about them. Anything that was categorised to a point when there is an accepted language to talk about it is not a philosophy, it is a science or something. Philosophy makes first attempts to categorise and when philosophers found a way then a new branch of science emerges.
When you try to talk about uncategorised things, you just can't talk about it. For example, lets assume that there are no widely accepted categorisation of colors, but you've developed one including names for colors like "blue", "red", "magenta" and so on. How you could communicate your ideas to others? The only way I know is to point to different examples of blue and say "blue", point to red and say "red". You need to lead your audience through experiences of blue/red/magenta while they train their neurons to classify them and only then you can refer to their experiences with words "blue", "red", "magenta" to convey the idea that they always appear in a rainbow in the same sequence. While you keep pointing at different colors saying their names, your audience will probably think, that it takes too long for you to get to a point.
I didn't read GEB, so I cannot say how this reason to "stretch limits of language" relates to it, but you've sad that you know no good reason for such stretching, and I hope that now you know at least one reason for it.
So why would you abuse your reader by making it a pain in the ass to figure out what you mean? I know there are some fancy arguments around stretching limits of language, but none of them seemed all that sensible to me. The only advantage I see to obscurantist writing is that it makes it impossible to critique the philosophers work. Any critique will just be met by the response that you didn't fully understand the author's argument. The Searle/Derrida debates are a great example of this. The upshot is that people spend all their time debating what you actually mean. Which I guess is good for the philosopher's brand, but doesn't advance knowledge much.
This isn't to say that you can't have beautiful writing in philosophy. I think Gaston Bachelard is a great example of both an elegant writer and a clear writer.
That being said, people really really love GEB, so it probably is worth reading regardless of these misgivings. One of these days I'll get to it.