Why philosophers write badly? an answer by Michel Foucault

This video is about obscurantism in continental philosophy, focusing on the postmodern tradition. We explore the challenges faced by John Searle,
a renowned philosopher of language (analytic tradition) as he grappled with the texts of postmodernists. His struggle was so profound that at one juncture, he even queried Michel Foucault about the seemingly poor quality of their writing. The answer Foucault gave to him, if true, is revealing of a certain practice that may call into question the works of certain philosophers of the continental tradition. After hearing Foucault's response I soured a bit on postmodern philosophy.

Also, I must say I don't know exactly if Foucault and Searle became friends in the 80's or before. Feel free to correct me in the comments.

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter:
Discord:
Substack:

[swerve]

Im only familiar with Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius. Sure, its obscure but there's beauty in it. It's like poetry to me. For one, certain philosophies like Nietzsche's especially during his time kind of had to be obscure to eliminate everyday people as it allows for a small group of people to focus on his work, not allowing it to become too mainstream. For example instead of saying a bunch of simple words to predict how science is going to make religion fall, he'd rather say God is dead. It's such a poetic sentence that not only would it instantly grab someone's attention but itll force to only attract types of people who love puzzles or deciphering stuff versus when it's too simple anyone can read and the average folks will misrepresent the philosophy as usual and completely ruin it. It also allows the reader to see someone's poetic skills and good poetry is extremely difficult to do. So seeing someone have the constant ability to create poetic prose kind of make me take them seriously because poetry demands a higher level of intelligence in which the average person cannot do nor will they comprehend so it would be pointless to allow the average person to have access to such philosophy judt to completely ruin it.

[JonTopping]

Hearing this thoroughly warmed my heart. I feel so validated right now, haha.

[Xob_Driesestig]

[Crossposted from an earlier comment to boost this video in the youtube algorithm]
Wow thanks for showing me this, that explains why I prefer reading summaries and explanations in english despite being somewhat okay in french. I mean two quotes are not strong evidence that it was widespread or that it's still happening today, but even if today's postmodern philosophers don't do it anymore they would still be lodging around terms and concepts from that time. I'm going to use this as an excuse to continue only reading summaries/explanations which will probably filter out that 10-20%.
One thing I will say is that Searle assumes we are proponents of those maxims he mentioned (which I think are meant to be a spin on Grice's Cooperative Principle), which I am not. For one, sometimes things in society/culture are just ambiguous and I think that if it's important, it's better to speak ambiguously than not at all. For example if you have a feeling in your gut that the culture-industry is becoming more pro-fascism, please share that feeling even if you can’t articulate well why you think it’s the case. All I ask is that people signpost it by writing stuff like: [We're are now entering the more ambiguous section of the paper] or something like that.

[dionysianapollomarx]

Here’s what I’ve heard from academics who speak and read French. In the original French, most of Foucault’s articles had an economy of words. Most of his popular books are the same but often presumed knowledge of his vocabulary that he used. His problem is the same as Hegel. They don’t tell you where to start but assume that you’ve started somewhere already correctly, ergo most of them start somewhere from Bataille, Heidegger, or Bergson, because they start off communicating with the “mighty dead” philosophers of the Western canon.

Anyway Hegel and Foucault both treat plain language as spoon-feeding a complex idea so as to oversimplify what is meant. You can ELI5 the ideas, but there’s a limit, is my understanding. That said, the metaphors they use can serve to confuse English speakers who aren’t educated on them. It’s a hard ask. For anyone really, including myself, who tries to take them seriously.

It’s best to go for analytic philosophical (or even at times sociological) interpreters of 20th century modern Francophone thinkers instead of learning from literary interpreters honestly, especially if you don’t have the time to spare to learn French good enough to read the whole history of French philosophy.

Btw, analytic philosophy I know of that interprets Foucault with great clarity is by Catarina Dutilh Novaes, bridging ideas between him and Carnap. Usually analytic social ontologists and analytic political philosophers (Eric Schliesser for example) do so.

[olgamarinho]

Clarity in writing is a value, I cannot take seriously a philosophy that is intentionally obscure. For me that is a kind of dishonesty.

There's a lot of knowledge needed of the history of western philosophy needed to participate and understand French and German thought. This is unlike the English speaking world, which even more so during Searle's time were more likely to be gleefully delighted as to have next to no knowledge of the history of philosophy. So it's simply no surprise to see these people shouting about not getting it. Meanwhile there's loads of secondary material available today through print and online of course for anyone who genuinely desires to be aware of what they are trying to express instead of trying to pose as an editor and disuade people from other ways of doing philosophy. They would be shocked to know, but this insular concern needs to be called what it is, anti-philosophical and anti-thought.

[bp]

Writing is part of the thinking process. If you don't write clearly, you don't think clearly.

[ramusgamingchannel]

I must admit that while I do not know that much about these things, I will add that Foucault reappropriated the context of "knowledge is power" from Francis Bacon. That is all I have to say.
My source is my own observation, and I learned that Bacon came up with that phrase from a book called "Uncommon Wisdom" by F. Capra.

[FoivosApostolou]

Foucault's Order of Things is unreadable in terms of redundant language and circular reasoning. Disciple and Punish is probably his most interesting book, mainly because he rips off ideas from Bergson. I think Foucault is pretty overated.

[jakedee]

This is like the stage magician having lovely lady assistants, smoke and mirrors. Distract the audience and cover up some cheap tricks.

[MrLcowles]

'Things that on the surface seem vague are, in reality, meaningless.'

[MrLcowles]

Yet the first line response to criticism of postmodern ideas is 'you just don't understand'. lol