If you can't explain your beliefs/ideas in a paragraph or three and instead tell people "It takes many years to...

>i pretend to understand concepts but cannot explain them, better just say it's "too complicated"
Yikes

>READ "X"

Completely wrong.

imo using big words allows the brain to manipulate big ideas. The information packed into a definition does not linearly scale with the cognitive toll of using or understanding them, so having large numbers of well defined terms literally makes you smarter in a given subject and anyone who calls Land's writing pretentious inadvertently reveals themselves as stubbornly and proudly brainlet.

Land isn't a pseud. Maybe you are just a brainlet.

Creating meaningful neologisms is the most important development of any philosophy.

Attached: 198384.jpg (171x266, 12K)

To fully understand the op takes a lifetime of deep reflection and study

Pretty much impossible for a psued such as yourself

Would you mind giving me an example retard?

Attached: 1564309813405.jpg (810x810, 274K)

Not him but it has nothing to do with originality. If you had any guts you would've posted your "beliefs" already, but you know he's right, and that explanation is a world away from a descriptive summary. Stop trying to hide your lack of intellectual rigour by accusing others of being egotistical. It's lazy and you're not doing much to convince us that you know what you're talking about.

Based yawnposter
It's like a normie litmus.

This is true. People who have no brevity and eloquence are the fucking worst.

Thesis, evidence, conclusion. Is it really that fucking hard? Stop rambling, you fucking dipshit. Your point is fucking simple. I hate when philosophers ramble and say nothing like Descartes and Nietzsche. Half of discourse on method is descartes rambling about how reasonable he is. Half of good and evil is nietzsche shit talking other philosophers. Get to the fucking point.

Bombastic and bloated are two separate things.

Did you suffer some kind of head injury, or are you just stupid enough to think that philosophers shouldn't be thorough? Descartes method of doubt is about establishing what he could say with reasonable certainty, so its going to take some time to go through the things we can "reasonably" be sure of. Nietzsche's vector is one of trashing the history of philosophy. You say
>Thesis, evidence, conclusion
even though philosophical enquiry take a lot of time and nebulous complexity to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. Stop demanding that your thinkers turn into fast-food restaurants.

But slowness and slowtards are not.

Get faster kid.

Attached: 27gw5b.jpg (842x500, 133K)

In any case, those of us with actual knowledge about science are now on the backfoot. Not only have people stopped reading our books, we are now wondering why no one has asked us to explain science to them. If they have, it's never been discussed.

We see people who still read science books. We notice that their friends read too. They keep asking us when we are writing our next book. What could possibly go wrong?

And these books make us think: "I have to take my foot off the gas" and "I have to do something to show them that I have more knowledge than these morons who don't."

But the problem is not the books; it is our own brains' tendency to overlearn (or whatever word for this phenomenon might be, it's a very old one, and it has nothing to do with people with actual knowledge about anything).

What in God's name is this thread's problem? All it takes is one reasonable comment to send you squares into a fit of rage

Attached: frame_01_delay-0.06s.gif (400x269, 50K)

lmao two or three paragraphs. If you can't explain it within a sentence you're a larp

The yawnposter is not a normie themselves, but they serve as a check on how pathological a thread is: if it can be yawned at by the big Other, then it's necessarily interesting (as a subject of pathology). Don't be upset, user.

I'm not that educated and in order to get a really good grasp it takes me about 30 minutes to explain something

>what was Donnellan's objection to Russell's theory of descriptions
>he was against the lack of referential use of nouns in Russell's theory

Feel enlightened brother?

You don't need to be educated.

Just use simple words, in simple sentences and make simple points. The whole meme about "these ideas are so mindblowing they NEED complex words/sentences to get across the exact, precise meaning" is absolute horseshit. There isn't an idea in the world that can't be explained on a sheet of A4.

>what was Donnellan's objection to Russell's theory of descriptions
No one cares. You find it hard to explain because it's pseud wank to begin with.

I would need about 30 minutes to explain this

It's entirely important if u care about logic in any form (hint u subconsciously do)

>what is philosophy

>It's entirely important if u care about logic
I don't care about defining it.

I know what it is, I don't need the theory behind it to use it. It's indulgent, useless wank. Yes, I know everything is but faggots who spend their time debating stupid shit like "what is truth" are idiots. Who gives a fuck? You know what truth is, everyone does. Doesn't matter if there's a universal theory to it, think about something that actually matters.

>love of wisdom
Class over, everyone gets an a

Do u care about AI user? AI needs neural network logic form to work. Sure to a layman it doesn't matter but you're always beholden to the times

More often than not a bunch of bloated, rambling, waffle that maybe 10% of is relevant, useful information and the other 90% is superfluous repetition and meandering word vomit.

I love philosophy, but philosophers love the sound of their own voice.

>Do u care about AI user?
No, I don't

Locke, Schopenhauer, Jung, Novalis, and the greeks have no fucking problem just stating ideas outright. Discourse had probably 50 pages out of 120 dedicated to rambling like this; "Friends and contemporaries, let it be known that I have thoroughly thought this through and that I assure you as to how reasonable it is. And I invite you to, if you find it unreasonable, to write me about something as to I may have overlooked. Yet I assure you that I have reasonably reasoned all of it wherein that God hath endowed me with such reasonable reasons to reason throughly." And all it amounted to was DUDE WE'RE LIKE MEAT PUPPETS BEING PILOTED BY A SOUL BRO ALL WE CAN BE SURE IS REAL IS LIKE OUR OWN MINDS BRO 420 BLAZE IT

And beyond good and evil goes on for 40 pages of; and Schopenhauer was a silly fool who HAD NO IDEA OF WHAT COULD REALLY HAPPEN IF NOT CONSTRAINED BY EGO. AND Kant was stupid and BLIND TO HOW NECESSARY OPERATING IN THE MILEAU IS TO THE people who DISRUPT FROM THIS." All to amount to BRO ETHICS ARE LIKE RELATIVE DUDE SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO BE BAD TO BE GOOD BRO 420 BLAZE IT

All this text to tell us some philosophers are verbose. You could've at least tried to write well.

>the absolute state of the Westernlet's attention span
Reminder that teaching lower classes to read and write was a mistake

>God exists, do good and good will come to you, do bad and bad will come to you etc. is a pretty acceptable explanation of Christianity
It's like you're arguing against yourself

I can explain my ideas simply but why would I ever want to?

Lmao got emmm

Nobody gives a fuck about the intricacies of it, only the big picture matters.

For one thing, Descartes is at least a century older than the philosophers you've listed. Caring about the (in this day and age) the anachronistic formalities of introductions is a minor quibble in relation to the ideas themselves, which (although flawed) are incredibly enduring and translatable. Your assessment overlooks the development of the text from reasonable modesty to more radical or innovative ideas. You're only thinking about aesthetic value when it comes to long-winded passages, you're not thinking about it in terms of functional significance and how it relates to the rest of the text. Descartes needs to invite critique in order for his argument to be proved watertight.