Why So Complex?
- Richard Liu
- 3月6日
- 讀畢需時 2 分鐘
Anyone interested in continental philosophy will quickly find that many continental philosophers do not want to make their point clear and precise. Though this is changing in contemporary analytic schools, continental philosophy still remains notoriously opaque. The problem with style has even intensified to the point of creating a major divide in philosophy. Noam Chomsky famously critiqued Žižek and the entire French tradition as “nonsensical word salads” and “charlatans” on the basis of their confusing writing style.
As someone who reads continental philosophy, I can attest to its difficulty and confusing nature. I have identified the elements that constitute this confusion and difficulty: ambiguity with terms, overly complex grammar, and a lack of evident structure. The question I’d like to ask from here is why? Why the ambiguity, complexity, and lack of structure?
To this question, many of the greats provided their own answers: Hegel’s ambiguity is intended to confuse the reader, as it aligns with his goal in philosophy—walking consciousness through a journey of self-realization. Heidegger, on the other hand, deliberately strays from the established metaphysical tradition: he invents new terms, new grammar, and new articulations (for example, the use of crossing out words to “erase” them from their original meaning) to make clear that he is referring to a new type of Being, distinct from Hegel or Kant.
Yet, these answers are highly questionable: Hegel’s self-realization could be achieved without complex, incomprehensible grammar, and yet he persists; Derrida’s new terminology could be clearly delineated, yet he makes them deliberately ambiguous.
Perhaps the reason behind the style of continental philosophy is deeper than simply the intention of the philosopher. French postmodernist Lyotard offered some insight into this phenomenon: he believed that postmodernists use their classic obfuscating style to embody a power structure—something that hides truth and reason. Perhaps the language of the continental tradition functions in the same way.
Comments