Omit Needless Words

A philosopher must necessarily pay attention to his words, since he is attempting to articulate an often new position or concept using older or more common definitions. Most are extremely careful about what they write, and make the attempt to write with as much clarity as the subject permits.
In some respects either the style "is" the philosophy, or at least follows a particular philosophical method. Spinoza, following what seemed to him to be the best method of mathematical deduction, reads like geometry, and with purpose. JS Mill, or Descartes choose a more personal style and diction, as if to say that anyone even untutored in philosophy can make sense of what they are saying. Nietzsche, one of the great prose writers in German, took his writing seriously despite (or because of) his literary style.

To say that all philosophers should be brief seems to be saying at the same time something about knowledge and the way it must reflect the truth. Yet truth, such as it is, seems neither obvious nor simple, but rather a very complex notion that requires the use of many perspectives and many different voices in attempting to reach an understanding. Plainsong or Gregorian chant is one approach to musical vocality, but there are also the full choruses of Handel or Verdi to be cherished for their own visions.

e.

To say that all philosophers should be brief seems to be saying at the same time something about knowledge and the way it must reflect the truth.

Good post. I would like to emphasize that the thread is called "omit needless words." If a tome is needed, bring on the tome.

I've spent much of my life reading, as you probably have yourself. One develops rules of thumb about first-impressions of books, as one does about people. I admit that sometimes these rules-of-thumb work against us.

In philosophy, as elsewhere, less is generally more. See Rorty, where more is generally less.

Rorty is a great example of great style. It's hard to believe you've read him.

actually an amusing anecdote about Jean Paul Sarte. I recall a story whereby a group of friends was around at his flat and a conversation started, and Sartre launched into one of his expositions which went on at some length. After a while, the group all decided to go for coffee, but Sartre kept going.

They were away for some time, and when they came back, he was still talking.

Having tried to read 'Being and Nothingness', this anecdote rings true for me.

People like Sartre often talk, write, and think for themselves. Audiences are incidental.

actually an amusing anecdote about Jean Paul Sarte. I recall a story whereby a group of friends was around at his flat and a conversation started, and Sartre launched into one of his expositions which went on at some length. After a while, the group all decided to go for coffee, but Sartre kept going.

They were away for some time, and when they came back, he was still talking.

Having tried to read 'Being and Nothingness', this anecdote rings true for me.

I got some good insights from Sartre, but I don't think anyone can deny that he was exceedingly verbose, especially in his formal works, such as Being and Nothingness. In fact the French philosophes generally seem to have an amazing talent for generating vast amounts of verbiage with a very slight meaning quotient.

I got some good insights from Sartre, but I don't think anyone can deny that he was exceedingly verbose, especially in his formal works, such as Being and Nothingness. In fact the French philosophes generally seem to have an amazing talent for generating vast amounts of verbiage with a very slight meaning quotient.

Omit Needless Words. I have never forgotten this phrase from Stunk and White's "The Elements of Style."

Let's talk about the writing style of philosophers. Let's talk about the medium as part of the message, the form as content. Personally, I'm suspicious of tomes, fat fat philosophy books. I'm also suspicious of new jargon if the old words are just as good. For instance, Blake is better when he is writing his views in plain English, in his annotations. (His annotations are clear enough for me to treat them as philosophy, yes.)

Anyone have any comments about philosophy and writing style, book length, chapter organization, footnotes, etc.? Or about how this contributes the overall effect?

Sokrates, before a major battle, was said to have remained standing for a good part of the day

Hmmm. I see you also misspell "Socrates".

He was the same person with whom you pointed out the misspelling before.