Topics Philosophy

Question People often complain that, generally, philosophical writings are too difficult to read. Taking this seriously, do you think one could say that it is in some respects immoral for a philosopher to -perhaps unthinkingly!- cast her thoughts in such a way as to make them difficult to apprehend? (Excluding very specialized philosophy, that is- where apparent abstruseness is simply a consequence of complexity. ie. surely all philosophy is not simply beyond the ordinary citizen.) I ask this because I enjoy reading philosophy but sometimes find that if the writer where more patient and deliberate with his/her presentation and structuring I wouldn't take so wretchedly long to understand the ideas. So...do you learned men and woman think that you have a duty to write concisely, laying out your thoughts as accessibly, systematically and neatly as possible? (In a gentle voice:It is after all tax payers money you're spending, and as readers we have finite time and much to do!) Kindly.

Accepted:
July 15, 2011

Comments

Do we have a duty to write concisely and as accessibly, systematically and neatly as possible? It would take a very long time to bring a philosophical essay to the highest feasible level of accessibility -- perhaps a lifetime. Had I subjected myself to this standard in earlier years, I would be long out of the profession by now. And were I to subject myself to this standard henceforth, most of my contributions would arrive years after interest in some issue has faded. Obviously, we have to make a trade-off here. We want to get things published in real time -- presumably also a goal that the taxpayers funding a system of higher education want to see achieved. But we certainly should be willing to accept some reduction in our publication rate for the sake of making these publications more accessible.

How these two desiderata are to be traded off depends a bit on the case. Some philosophical work is read pretty much only by philosophers -- but in some cases this is, you might rightly point out, a consequence of inaccessibility and thus not a good excuse for it. It's really wonderful sometimes to see a gifted writer who can make an esoteric subject matter accessible and even exciting for people outside professional philosophy. But many philosophers, and even excellent philosophers, lack this gift and could achieve wide accessibility only at the cost of producing much less. Isn't it better, then, that they write mainly for philosophers and hope for someone else who will communicate their thoughts in a way that's more accessible to the general public?

So this is then my proposed compromise. As a profession, we do indeed have a duty to communicate our work clearly and accessibly to the general public. We should all be mindful of this duty -- for example by not being dismissive of, or easily dismissing from their jobs, "popularizers" who manage to convey the essence of a philosophical question or debate beyond the confines of the discipline. But not every one of us needs to meet this standard in all her or his writings. Many need not ever meet it if they are reasonably confident that their contributions are or will be clearly reflected in the communications of others. Given the current state of the profession, this compromise would move us some way in your direction. But it would stop short of a world in which every philosophical piece of writing is as clear and accessible to the general public as its writer can possibly make it.

I hope very much, of course, that you will find enough interesting and sufficiently accessible work to keep reading philosophy. Readers like you will keep us motivated to try harder for accessibility.