Are Critical theorists (usually the french) intentionally using difficult language just to fuck with their readers or are the translators just really bad at making their ideas seem more presentable in it's non native form?
>>23821836Its more the syntax than the jargon. Every discipline has jargon and the objects of a philosophical essay generally differ from the common usage in idiosyncratic ways. The run-on sentences with seven clauses are all style though. Analytic phil has all the jargon but is written more intelligibly.
>>23821836I wish modern critical theorists wrote with the clarity and vigour of a Horkheimer instead of imitating the spiralling self-questioning of a Derrida.
>>23821836The cartographers know nothing anon
>>23821836They are fucking with you. You are not supposed to read them btw.
Baudrillard's glossary isn't difficult, it's just that he is constantly shifting the parameters of these concepts. Terms like 'symbolic exchange' 'evil' 'fatal' 'seduction' you could look up in a dictionary but they're more like floating signifiers, being constantly redefined in the context he uses tuem in. Blame Bataille.
>>23821836Blame German idealism.>>23822221Why would I blame Bataille for it, or are you talking about Baudrillard specifically?
>>23821836Cargo cult 'Hegelians'.
>>23821836French philosophy used to be known for clarity until Sartre decided to imitated Heidegger's style of writing. I remember John Searle mentioning how Foucault told him that to be considered a serious intellectual in France you have to write incomprehensibly but I'm too lazy to find the source.
>>23823872>French philosophy used to be known for clarityI yearn for that style
>>23821836yes and yes
>>23821836Depends on the author. Usually, their prose is complicated because its full of references to other books people in their social circle have read. e.g. Derrida's phrase "Specters of Marx" is a reference to the Commie Manifesto and a joke because the book is abount hauntology which is a reference to ghosts and gothic fiction. Derrida's target audience would understand this because they are already familiar with Marx, but the average person won't get it. Others, like Butler for example, are just genuinely bad writers being arrogant dickheads for clout. But if you were to read the latest big publication in physics or math, you'd probably find that incomprehensibel too.
