So my roomate just borrowed Fatal Strategies by Jean Baudrillard, a collection of essays by the Sociologist-Philosopher dealing with the rationale of present day humans dealing with the information age of technology and overload. I normally avoid more modern philosophers, since their theories seem to be overdeveloped and specialized to a particular area, as opposed to earlier philosophers which have stood the test of time and are more useful in their ubiquitous application. However I found myself getting sucked in after reading the back cover, and I am really enjoying parts of the book, but ONLY PARTS. This is because he, like many philosophers, choose to write in philosopher-speak. This is great if you are used to reading the jargon and overly complex structure of the inner circle of philosophers (like any specialized field).
However, this is confusing, because I would imagine that philosophers want to reach many people, to hopefully affect peoples thought patterns in a positive way and give them new interesting ideas that will change their lives and make them more fulfilled human beings. but then why no plain English? I have a degree in Biology and Sociology, and I have taken an introductory course in Philosophy as well as read countless sociology papers and read some other philosophy and related books on my own time. So why is it I can easily understand less than fifty percent of what he is trying to tell me? Does he not actually want me to know? Is it some sort of subconsious urge to exclude the majority of people?
I would hope not. His elegant portrait of modern day society is facinating, but lacking in what the layman needs to grasp it's full meaning - that is, in my opinion, concrete examples, easy to understand language, full definition of key terms and a style that lets someone focus on understanding the concept rather than struggling to relate what they are saying at the moment to the context of the rest of the paragraph.
That all aside, if you are okay with this style of writing, you should definitely check it out. Even if you have to read resummaries and interpretation by other people, on websites or wherever, its good stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Baudrillard, like most philosophers, wasn't writing for a mass audience. Philosophy's aim is not to persuade, but to understand and share ideas. If understanding (or the road to it) is complicated and jargon-laden, then so be it. Persuasion is the work of the sophist, not the philosopher.
Post a Comment