On Philosophers

Why is it that philosophers seem so insane, but yet when you finally get it (or them, their work, at least some of them), it's like finishing your first puzzle as a kid, and you say, "Why couldn't they just have made that simpler?" Any philosophers come to your mind??? I'm thinking of Jacques Derrida

Hallo!

I think they complicate it for two reasons. One, because it can't really be simplified, and two, for the same reason a joke's not funny if you need to explain the punch line. Really, they're the same reason, just said in different ways.

Take for example, Lao-tzu and Taoism. The first stanza of the Tao te Ching is translated as follows:

The Tao that can be told of
Is not the absolute Tao;
The Names that can be given
Are not the Absolute Names.
The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the Mother of All Things

As for the Way, the Way that can be spoken of is not the constant Way;
As for names, the name that can be named is not the constant name.
The nameless is the beginning of the ten thousand things;
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.

^^ Both of those are translated versions of the same opening stanza. Just to clarify, following the Tao is following the Way. Tao = way, path, route, etc. Tao te Ching can mean [/i]the ten thousand things[/i] or the named. So really, they’re both saying the same thing, but my gosh, it’s confusing, it’s self contradicting, and it runs around in circles. The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth, but the named is the mother of all things? Which is it? Named or nameless?

To really get the full effect of the first stanza, you need to take the time to think about it and work your way to the answer. You need to go through the process, think about it, take your time in considering it. The answer won’t pop up over night, and it’s not supposed to. You’re supposed to think about it and take your time with it.

The other reason, that they can’t simplify it, is more on their end of things than yours. Take a thought, an emotion, and try to put it in words. Not a thought as in, “the dog jumped over the fence,” thought as in concept, thought as in thought, something that language is too insufficient to bind it with. Heck, just take the concept of a thought in general. What is a thought? Imagine someone coming up to you and asking you to tell them how to form them. How do you describe how to form a thought? How do you describe how to find the Way/Tao? Which leads us back to the other reason, why is a joke not funny if you need to explain it?

A thought, or even the concept of thought, cannot be put into words very well, there are too many things that it is and at the same time, is not. It is a gathering of words, but they are not words, really. It’s a voice, but it’s not a voice. (for me, anyway, for all I know, your thoughts might be pictures or something). So you write down all these seemingly contradictory statements, and every word of them is true. It is then up to that person to work out the how of it, to grasp the concept of it. It is a voice, but it’s not a voice. It’s a gathering of words, but the words are not words. You see it now?

1. They can’t put their philosophies/concepts/ideas in words and make it any clearer than they just did, because, no matter what language you speak, it’s too limited.

2. In order for you to really understand what they’re trying to say, you need to come to the conclusion on your own, so you really do understand it and how they got it and why they think it and all that stuff. So you truly do have an understanding of it.

... I don't know if any of that made sense or not. If not, let me know and I'll try again. XD

The Philosopher's Song springs to mind as giving a reasonable explanation.

What's the philosopher's song??? That sounds interesting