How come academic philosophy was always more obfuscating than the independents? This still applies with the philosophers born at the turn of the century: smoke-screeners like Land and Peterson, compared to the clarity and honest immorality of an Alex Kierkegaard.
>I care for a philosopher only to the extent that he is able to be an example.... Kant clung to the university, subjected himself to governments, remained within the appearance of religious faith, and endured colleagues and students: it is small wonder that his example produced in the main university professors and professors' philosophy. Schopenhauer has no consideration for the scholars' caste, stands apart, strives for independence of state and society. Wherever there have been powerful societies, governments, religions, or public opinions, it has hated the lonely philosopher; for philosophy opens up a refuge for man where no tyranny can reach.
>Thus, the philosopher dislikes marriage as well as what might persuade him into it. Marriage is a barrier and a disaster along his route to the optimal. What great philosopher up to now has been married? Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibtniz, Kant, Schopenhauer?? None of these got married. What`s more, we cannot even imagine them married. A married philosopher belongs in a comedy, that`s my principle. And Socrates, the exception, the malicious Socrates, it appears, got married ironically to demonstrate this very principle.
>Every philosopher would speak as once Buddha spoke when someone told him of the birth his son, "Rahula has been born to me. A shackle has been forged for me." (Rahula here means "a little demon"). To every "free spirit" there must come a reflective hour, provided that previously he has had a one without thought, of the sort that came then to Buddha - "Life in a house," he thought to himself, "is narrow and confined, a polluted place. Freedom consists of abandoning houses;" "because he thought this way, he left the house.”
>>2403456
because academics always write for their main audience i.e other academics, with the intent of being circulated only among academics.
>>2403472
Instead of writing for the future, you mean?
That's still only a surface level explanation. What is it about academic writing in philosophy that invites mystifying the issues? Perhaps it is that this way you can take the same set of ideas, and multiply them into taking up more publications.
YOU ALSO GET TOTAL SHITSHOWS LIKE REI/KOZ THAT COMBINE THE WORST ASPECTS OF EACH CATEGORY
>>2403456
Wow. What a disgustingly ignorant piece of writing.
>>2403616
Jokes on you, those passages are from a philosopher whose work has exerted a profound influence on Western philosophy and modern intellectual history.