it is interesting but I don't think it is quite the same thing as I was talking about because, as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to imply anything at least very vaguely along the lines of "choosing to be confused" and seems partly to do with behavior as opposed to belief.
it is interesting but I don't think it is quite the same thing as I was talking about because, as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to imply anything at least very vaguely along the lines of "choosing to be confused" and seems partly to do with behavior as opposed to belief.
The term for that is Deliberate Obscurity. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism#Deliberate_obscurity
In short, my concern over the spread of subjectivist thinking is both intellectual and political. Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is that they are false (when not simply meaningless). There is a real world; its properties are not merely social constructions; facts and evidence do matter. What sane person would contend otherwise? And yet, much contemporary academic theorizing consists precisely of attempts to blur these obvious truths—the utter absurdity of it all being concealed through obscure and pretentious language.
Originally posted by @wildgrass The term for that is Deliberate Obscurity. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism#Deliberate_obscurity
In short, my concern over the spread of subjectivist thinking is both intellectual and political. Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is that they are false (when not simply meaningless). There is a real world; its properties ...[text shortened]... —the utter absurdity of it all being concealed through obscure and pretentious language.
yes, that seems to be basically what I was talking about.
10 Sep '17 17:571 edit
10 facts evolutionists don't want you to know
Back to Top