It also explains why Popper managed to understand so much on his own, and open the way to Kuhn in the process. — Olivier5

What Popper specifically did not understand was the idea behind the paradigm, that worldviews, scientific and otherwise, function as integrated gestalts, and when a gestalt shift takes place, no amount of plain speaking will produce comprehension if the person has not achieved this shift in worldview.
Popper denied that change in theoretical ideas takes place this way because he remained wedded to a correspondence view of truth.

I had in mind rather the kind of authors who say the nonsense featured in Sokal and Bricmont's “Fashionable Nonsense”. — Amalac

To be fair , if your only exposure to ‘postmodern philosophy’ is Sokal’s book, you really need to read primary sources , or at least notable interpreters of such sources. I should mention that I don’t find Irigaray to be a significant philosopher , and I share with Derrida a distaste for Lacan’s sloppy style. The ‘postmodern’ writers I particularly admire are Derrida , Foucault, Deleuze, Heidegger ( yes, I consider him to be postmodern) , and Wittgenstein.

unlike with people like Derrida and Lacan (excluding his psychology, about which I haven't read enough to make a judgement). I bet their “ideas”(if you can even call them that) will not have any importance in the next 200 years. — Amalac

I read Derrida’s ideas as being in close proximity to Heidegger’s but venturing just a little beyond him. So as long as Heidegger remains relevant , so will Derrida.

perhaps you could give me a brief explanation of how Heidegger's work helped or is contributing to scientific progress. — Amalac

Matthew Ratcliffe is one of the leading writers on cognition and emotion. Here are two articles showing why he considers Heidegger’s work on affect and mood so relevant to current theorizing in psychology. Ratcliffe is not alone here. Jan Slaby, Evan Thompson , Dam Zahavi, Thomas Fuchs and many others in psychology are turning to his work.

https://www.academia.edu/458309/Why_Mood_Matters

https://www.academia.edu/458222/Heideggers_Attunement_and_the_Neuropsychology_of_Emotion

Tell you what. You give me a list of who you consider to be leading suspects for unreadable philosophy , and I will summarize, simplify, and link their work to social scientists who have embraced them. — Joshs

Why would I go to the trouble of doing that? There are so many other good books out there - philosophy, non-fiction, poetry, fiction - why would I spend my time reading books I didn't enjoy or get anything out of?

The ‘postmodern’ writers I particularly admire are Derrida , Foucault, Deleuze, Heidegger ( yes, I consider him to be postmodern) , and Wittgenstein. — Joshs

I see part of the confusion here is purely verbal: I don't consider Foucault or Wittgenstein to be obscurantist at all, unlike Derrida. I don't consider them “postmodern”.

To be fair , if your only exposure to ‘postmodern philosophy’ is Sokal’s book, you really need to read primary sources — Joshs

I never said it was my only exposure, that's something you inferred on your own.

Matthew Ratcliffe is one of the leading writers on cognition and emotion. Here are two articles showing why he considers Heidegger’s work of affect and mood so relevant to current theorizing in psychology.

https://www.academia.edu/458309/Why_Mood_Matters

https://www.academia.edu/458222/Heideggers_Attunement_and_the_Neuropsychology_of_Emotion — Joshs

Ok, I'll read them if I have the chance.

Nobody can understand everything. Nevertheless his contribution was gigantic, and go well beyond reframing the scientific method. It included an in-depth critique of historicism in its marxist and fascist forms, as well as a staunch defense of indeterminism. All written in perfectly clear and unpretentious language.

All written in perfectly clear and unpretentious language. — Olivier5

There’s that word ‘clear’ again. I’m still not sure what it’s supposed to mean, other that that you understand someone’s prose. With regard to Popper, what you call ‘clear’ I call lacking in depth, which leads me to the conclusion that clarity is in the mind of the beholder.

I’m still not sure what it’s supposed to mean, other that that you understand someone’s prose. — Joshs

You don't think there's a qualitative difference in writing quality between Husserl and Russell?

I'm not speaking about depth of ideas, that's person dependent, but I'd be surprised if you said that Husserl wrote better than Russell or Heidegger than Plato. Nothing against either Husserl or Heidegger, in fact I enjoy them, but not because of style.

You don't think there's a qualitative difference in writing quality between Husserl and Russell? — Manuel

That’s a toughie. I can’t stand Russell, and am allergic to most analytic approaches to philosophy in general. To me they come across as terribly thin, utterly unable
to dig more than a millimeter or two beneath the surface of a thought. The few exceptions I found were Putnam and Rorty, and I suppose that’s because they were distancing themselves from the analytic style. It took me decades to penetrate Husserl, and that’s because he leapt so far ahead of his contemporaries that every sentence he wrote was like a thesis unto itself.

That's fine in that you don't find what Russell says interesting or deep. I was only speaking about prose style.

On the other hand, to your credit, you tend to express yourself quite clearly, not in the convoluted way Husserl did. You can say that that's because he was ahead of his time. Maybe.

But then there are people, like Zahavi, who do explain Husserl very clearly.

Clear, as defined by Popper himself, is equivalent to 'not using more complex a language than the problem at hand requires'. In other word, clear = clear enough. It's a clear enough definition to me.

With regard to Popper, what you call ‘clear’ I call lacking in depth, — Joshs

How many of his books have you read?

The main problem I see with obscure language is fake depth. It is a phenomenon linked to projection: the reader faced with an obscure and ambiguous text tends to project his own intuitions onto the text and this results in a play of mirrors, an echo effect where the reader can easily mistake hollowness with depth.

Clear, as defined by Popper himself, is equivalent to 'not using more complex a language than the problem at hand requires'. — Olivier5

That's actually Einstein. :roll:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

More than one person have said it.

I couldn't find that quote...

I couldn't find that quote... — Wheatley

Same here. I wanted to quote an intellectual giant on the issue but I don't even know where to begin. So, I'll try to convey my thoughts in my own words.

When a photograph isn't clear, there are two possibilities:

1. Something's wrong with your eyes. Correctable with the help of an ophthalmologist

2. The photograph itself is fuzzy/blurry. Impossible to correct. — TheMadFool

If memory serves it's in the first few pages of the Open Society and its Enemies.

↪Wheatley If memory serves it's in the first few pages of the Open Society and its Enemies. — Olivier5

I'll take your word for it.

If philosophy is not about conceptual clarification, then it is nothing.

Hence if supposed discussion muddies things further, requesting further explication is good practice.

So it would be wrong, as you say, to reject outright a discussion that is unclear. But it would be worse to accept it. Demanding clarification is then the best response.

If clarification is not forthcoming, or if the reply is equally obscure, then it is reasonable to move on; indeed, in not pursuing an obscure line of discussion, one is not rejecting anything, since nothing has been presented.

There’s that word ‘clear’ again. I’m still not sure what it’s supposed to mean, other that that you understand someone’s prose. With regard to Popper, what you call ‘clear’ I call lacking in depth, which leads me to the conclusion that clarity is in the mind of the beholder. — Joshs

I think the beholder part is largely true. It's also a product of experience. If you are an academic who has been trained to read more, shall we call it 'technical' writing, then your reading experience is different. Abstruseness/complexity are relative terms.

To call prose 'clear' you would probably need to set a range of key indicators that describe what clear looks like - something similar to what George Orwell did in his essay "Politics and The English Language" (the principles transcend cultural chauvinism). I do hold an old fashioned belief that a writer should strive for clarity and there are likely to be a range of steps they can take to build this into their writing and articulation of ideas.

:100:

If philosophy is not about conceptual clarification, then it is nothing. — Banno

Not everyone agrees with that.

:100:

If you are an academic who has been trained to read more, shall we call it 'technical' writing, then your reading experience is different. Abstruseness/complexity are relative terms. — Tom Storm

I'm no academic, and I'm lacking in a lot of philosophical terms of art. This forces me to write things out "long hand" if you will. But the idea might still be there.

Yeah, but those who do not are wrong.

Yeah, but those who do not are wrong. — Banno

How? Because you say so?

Is your argument that one of the aims of philosophy should be to make arguments more obscure?

Is your argument that one of the aims of philosophy should be to make arguments more obscure? — Banno

No. It is your belief that philosophy is about clarifying concepts, not mine.

Then you are saying that philosophy should neither seek to clarify nor make more obscure.

So you want philosophy that makes no difference.

Then you are saying that philosophy should neither seek to clarify nor make more obscure. — Banno

I am not saying that either. All I said not everyone agrees that philosophy is about clarifying concepts. How philosophy should be done is a different matter.

So you want philosophy that makes no difference. — Banno

My desires about philosophy isn't relevant.

Cheers. Have a good day.

It's your way or the highway. I see.