people who claim philosophy is intentionally obscurantist very rarely seem to level the same criticism to, say, physics. try reading a physics paper and a philosophy paper with no background in either and see which is easier to understand

obviously i have my own horse in the race here but, in the first place, 'this field uses its own terminology' is the shallowest criticism possible, and in the second, where you think its appropriate to use non-ordinary language & where it becomes obscurantism tells heavily on what your background assumptions are

to use philosophical terminology: the language-games of philosophy are not the same as those of day-to-day life. if philosophical concepts could be easily and unambiguously communicated in ordinary language, they would be trivial — communicating something beyond the usual levels of analysis we apply requires language different from the one we usually apply


@esvrld i think a lot of philosophy IS trivial, because anyone alive is thinking Hard about this shit like a Lot. i think that's why people especially pick on philosophy for making the trivial inaccessible. but certainly i don't reserve the criticism for philosophy only. in other words,

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!