Sobriquet Home | Author Index | About Us | Book Reviews | Music Reviews | Email | Punk Encyclopedia | Punk Links | Writers


Dissertation Blog Home
About the Blog
Email & Comment Policy
About the Zine
Record Reviews
Sobriquet on Facebook
Sobriquet on MySpace
Sobriquet on Twitter
Sobriquet on Tumblr


The Chronicle


Cincinnati Bengals
New York Yankees
Cleveland Cavaliers
Montreal Canadiens


New York Times
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Newark Star-Ledger
Chicago Tribune
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Washington Post
Los Angeles Times
San Francisco Chronicle
Christian Science Monitor


Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Powered by Blogger

    eXTReMe Tracker

    RSS Feed Readers

    Sobriquet 54.14

    Sunday, May 24, 2009
    One of the things that frustrates me most about some academic writing is a tendency to present near-elementary concepts in bewilderingly complex prose. It often seems as if the post-Heideggerian argot embraced by a certain variety of post-structuralist has become, for better or worse, the standard idiom of several branches of the humanities. And, while I have read enough Derrida and company to recognize, however grudgingly, the value of such language in certain situations, I resist the notion that torturously labyrinthine pleonasm and abstruse jargon is intrinsic to the discussion of even the most profound thought. (And, yes, I did use pleonasm to be funny, if only in an ironic word-nerd way. It basically means "wordiness").

    At any rate, I did not post entries the past few evenings because I had tired myself out by reading such texts late into the night.

    For tomorrow: Read.


    Permanent Link
    © Sobriquet Magazine

    Share: StumbleUpon Toolbar Add to Mixx! Digg!

  1. From Minxy:

    Don't worry...I totally got your irony, even though I didn't necessarily know what the word meant. :)

    By Blogger Sobriquet Magazine on 24 May, 2009
  2. You are not alone in experiencing that frustrated attitude towards the realm of diction used while discussing philosophy in any type of forum. I think it reflects the current conditions of where philosophical discussions are acceptable to take place in present society.

    On campus grounds, whether with fellow students, professors or a combination of the two, the 'post-Heideggerian argot' is necessary to use in order to 'gain standing' as awful and cruel as that sounds. Somewhere though, in trying to converse at some mythical level in dialogue, the whole point of discussing philosophy gets lost.

    Yet these are not the most sophisticated of times. Where else in America can you discuss these things without being looked at as if you have eight heads, than on campus grounds and inside the 'ivory tower'? There is no place in today's society for writing or discussing philosophical prose, literature or critique as a social exercise, as a way to fill up the 'free time' section of your blackberry’s daily planner. Whatever happened to calling up a friend, discussing Kant’s attack on pure reason and applying your own dichotomy to his thoughts, just because that is the most pleasant way to spend a sunny afternoon? People no longer question what being alive encompasses, outside secluded areas such as classrooms or seminars.

    This huge gap in the spectrum of discussing philosophy, I believe, is what lends itself to the current forum you and a minority of others, apparently can’t stand. The philosophical circles have grown so small, so secluded, so sacred and novel, that the figurative price of admission is going up at a pretty steady rate. The people outside the circle are so far driven off from any area of philosophy, they place a huge burden and set of expectations on those who claim to be in philosophy, as some sort of side show they can glance at every so often.

    It has become so that philosophy, not biology or quantum mechanics or astrophysics, is the most exact science. Quite absurd.

    Anyone can be a philosopher. Get out a pen or keyboard, focus on an area of life as you think it should be or why it is the way it is, all the little avenues that can funnel influences into that area and how it pertains to your own individual philosophical dichotomy and do nothing but write upon it for hours on end. The beautiful thing is, you can’t be wrong! The worst that can happen is some prick comes along and points out all of your contradictions. Big deal. Instead of being a Kantian, or a Derridaian, or a Aristotleian, why not be strictly a youian? Why bow down to the minds of the past only and entirely negate your own collected consciousness and convictions? Philosophy should be the least guarded area of study, in my opinion.

    Well, this is what may have to happen to get rid of that post-structural frame of mind associated with current philosophy. The contours of philosophy do not exist in some folder inside a steel drawer that slides in and out of an office desk; it exists in every event people do, all 6.7 billion of us. I would say ‘all action is a reflection of philosophy’ but I wouldn’t want to upset the followers of metaphysics. But keeping that in mind would severely decrease the hold contemporary philosophers say they have over the field in question.

    By Anonymous Anonymous on 24 May, 2009

    Post a Comment
    << Home



    William Gaddis
    The Modern Word
    Kurt Vonnegut
    Chuck Palahniuk
    Free Audiobooks


    Ben Weasel
    Ed Kemp
    The Irascible Professor
    Jeremy Hance
    Ielle Palmer
    Literary Chica
    Rex Parker
    Tiffany Roufs
    Pop Sensation
    Lime Plate


    South Park Studios
    Garfield Minus Garfield
    The Onion
    Urban Legends
    Daily Rotten
    Rotten Library
    Six Sentences
    Eric Mattina's Film Reviews


    Arts & Letters Daily
    Stirrings Still


    The Atlantic
    Foreign Affairs
    National Geographic


    National Initiative
    Mike Gravel '08
    Ralph Nader '08

    Academic,  Learning & Educational Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Add to Google

    Site Visits:
    This site was built by modifying a template designed by Maystar Designs. All text, unless otherwise noted, is copyright 2001-2009 by Sobriquet Magazine (ISSN 1930-1820). © 2009 Sobriquet Magazine. All rights reserved. Sobriquet Magazine and the Sobriquet Magazine logo are registered trademarks of Sobriquet Magazine.