I remember reading one of bishop Berkleys Q&A type platonic style dialogues and that was very clear. — Swanty

Yes, I think Berkeley and Wilde are great writers. Hume is famous for his prose (e.g. On the Standard of Taste) although I find it a bit overblown myself. Philosophers are a bit hit and miss in terms of writing styles.

EDIT: While a bit dull, ChatGPT does a fab job of making up nonsense but setting it out in a clear, transparent and readable style.

@bert1

I like a lot of Humes writings but he gets a little weird and dogmatic at times.

Philosophers definitely vary in style

Do you think there is any psychological reason for an overblown style?

@bert1

Ah,that's a really good point with regard to chatGPT.
My answer to that is, as I mentioned before, as well as clear it must have some power and entertainment in it. Not dull or cold.
As Nietzsche said; I only like this who write in blood!
Cold nonsense is psychopathic! As befits a programmed machine!

But basically they [Kant and Hegel] are bad writers! — Swanty

Tsk, tsk. A categorical statement. You have stated your case, now make it: show us; prove it.

Better in my opinion you had said you find some texts easier and some more difficult - and no disagreement possible. But you said they're bad. Nor am I defending either. I find Kant takes work, which as it happens made me a much stronger reader. And Hegel I find impenetrable. Kant was explicit: he wasn't writing either to me or for me, as @I like sushi observed. And a ready excuse for Hegel provided by one of his translators who explained (I paraphrase here) that Hegel's language was understood by his contemporaries then but not so much us now. And there is also the matter of the style of writing then current. Books written badly usually - always? - quickly disappear. But even now, still, even B&N has both Kant and Hegel on its shelves.

@tim wood

Ok,let me elucidate this way. You say you find Hegel impenetrable.

How have you come to this conclusion?

I'm not criticising Kant or Hegel's ideas, or saying don't wrestle with their general critiques.

In fact some of Hegel's phenomenology and political analysis is fab. Same with Kant on human perception and subjective idealism.

But both could have explained their ideas far clearer and with more brevity.

They are bad writers because they don't summarise their ideas with clarity,but waffle on for pages and pages.

B&N still stocks because of academic tradition, because of the gold within the dross and the fact that many love overblown jargon laden texts and waffle.

You say you find Hegel impenetrable. How have you come to this conclusion? — Swanty

It's not "a conclusion." It's my observation about me and my experience. I have similar difficulty reading set theory proofs. In neither case do I suppose either badly written, only that I have trouble understanding them. The corollary being that if I worked at it, I'd more easily understand. But life is short and work is much, many, and long, so I make my choices. And I'm often contented that others do understand and understand better than I do.

But both could have explained their ideas far clearer and with more brevity. — Swanty

For you. I'm obliged to wonder whether, if you think their ideas are so easily compressible, you really understand them.

They are bad writers because they don't summarise their ideas with clarity, but waffle on for pages and pages. — Swanty

I think it's pretty clear where the problem is. As if their texts were like weights in a gym, heavier than most, and you complained, "My gosh but these are difficult - they should be lighter!" No. they're difficult because they're heavier. You just need to get stronger, but as you're young, keep at it and you'll get it.

B&N still stocks.... — Swanty

Because they sell. Period.

I see many people who like Kant or Hegel because it's a badge of honour to have read their supposedly difficult books. But basically they are bad writers! — Swanty

You could be correct on this point.

Cite some representative samples of my "unclear" "jargon laden style and weird grammatically abbreviated sentences". Thanks.

Cite some representative samples of my "unclear" "jargon laden style and weird grammatically abbreviated sentences". Thanks. — 180 Proof

Just playing.

I'm suspicious of long winded writers,it's like a long list of apologies and overwrought justifications,showing how the writer is unsure of his ideas! — Swanty

Long writings on the philosophical topics tend to be counter productive in its clarity. Usually long writings get avoided and misunderstood by the readers. CPR could have been written in 10 pages prolegomena instead of 800 pages and in two versions.

Even in the forum, I tend to avoid reading the long OPs or posts unless they are super interesting or significant. I just tend to read the titles and first 1 or 2 sentences before moving on to something else.

Niet and Witt were great in writing short and sweet philosophies.

Long writings on the philosophical topics tend to be counter productive in its clarity. Usually long writings get avoided and misunderstood by the readers. CPR could have been written in 10 pages prolegomena instead of 800 pages and in two versions. — Corvus

That's right. And I can whistle Beethoven's Ninth. The trouble comes when folks are dismissive because of length. Short, sweet (maybe), and simple - that's how it should be. Is that what your girlfriend thinks?

That's right. And I can whistle Beethoven's Ninth. The trouble comes when folks are dismissive because of length. Short, sweet (maybe), and simple - that's how it should be. Is that what your girlfriend thinks? — tim wood

Your question committed a categorical misunderstanding, therefore discarded as meaningless babble. My girl friend is not philosophical writings. They belong to different categories.

But maybe she knows about short and quick, and can and would appreciate longer and not so quick.

Kant himself wrote that some books would be shorter if they weren't so short; that is, if they didn't scant clarity in favor of brevity, thus in effect taking longer. Or in other terms, too short, too long, and just right. And I myself for my own benefit and uses have tried to condense parts of Kant. And you can't without loss of substance. What you can do, with people you suppose are at least equal with you in shared understanding, is talk in shorthand, code, that evokes unexplicated that shared understanding - but that not the same thing.

I don't read my girl friend. :nerd:
I tend to refer from the academic commentaries on CPR these days for saving time. There are other stuff to read, and time is too short in a day. " Remember everyone has limited time in this world." - Steve Jobs

I take leave of your girlfriend, appreciating her contributions and insights here. And I agree: time is short and we have to make our choices. Trouble arises when we represent our choices and their results as being more than they are.

Also arising is the question of the quality of the secondary source; not all are right and some are plain wrong. And how would anyone know without access to the original? With the result that, as referred to above, sometimes the seeming long way 'round is the shortest and best.

*Taps podium with a small stick*
I think we are all as in tune as we're ever going to be; let's begin the overture...

:smirk:

Do you think there is any psychological reason for an overblown style? — Swanty

Maybe in some cases but I have no idea and less interest. Philosophy is tricky enough without taking an interest in people's motivations. It drives me up the wall on this site when someone is accused of thinking something because of some character trait, as if that is relevant to the philosophy.

Also arising is the question of the quality of the secondary source; not all are right and some are plain wrong. And how would anyone know without access to the original? — tim wood

There is no originals in Philosophy. All philosophy is interpretation and critique of the world.

sometimes the seeming long way 'round is the shortest and best. — tim wood

Long way round is the longest with no ending. What may look best today might turn out to be claptrap tomorrow. Stay open minded. :D

There is no originals in Philosophy. — Corvus

We'll credit this to an enthusiasm fueled by maybe wine. Silliness from a bottle - unless the bottle is you.

:lol:

We'll credit this to an enthusiasm fueled by maybe wine. Silliness from a bottle - unless the bottle is you. — tim wood

It wasn't me. It was A.N. Whitehead who said that all western philosophy is footnote of Plato.