>>25641109
Yes. Don't do drugs

>>25641109
What if you have a penile tilt? My wood bends left, can I understand Hegel?

>>25641164
Not dialectical enough, sorry anon

How about you give us some arguments for your point instead of just putting it out there? To me it seems like having obtuse and difficult to read texts (due to hard to read abuse of the language, not difficult concepts) serves no real purpose other than "filtering" people who prefer a straightforward way of expressing onself. German Idealists seem to be particularly flawed in that regard. Have you read those texts in German? Because if you do, you will realize that, as you implied in your pic related, Hegel just abuses and rapes the German language to no end, and expects you to follow along. There is a difference between having a certain style or a "verbal tilt" and just abusing and raping the language. Much of this cannot be translated into English, because the way you can abuse German is very distinct from English and other languages, so to get a full picture of how abused and raped the German language is in Hegel, you really have to read it in German as a native speaker.

File: obscurantism-flowchart.png (42 KB, 1078x1380)

42 KB PNG

>>25641109
>>25641332

>>25641332
>To me it seems like having obtuse and difficult to read texts (due to hard to read abuse of the language, not difficult concepts) serves no real purpose other than "filtering" people who prefer a straightforward way of expressing onself.

You say that, but I honestly can't think of one who intentionally obscures the language for the sake of it, and both Kant and Hegel wrote their grand philosophical treatises under very short time constraints, Kant in three months if memory serves. Both writers have several works in which they become poetic or as clear as Schopenhauer, but they get so lost in their own jargon that they fail to take the general reader into account; and obviously thought more about the arguments than the way they would be presented.