Talk:Obscurantism

message: "Indeed, it is a commonly raised accusation in debates on academic freedom, with anti-communists and others associating it with the philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel and his followers (including Karl Marx) and recently and more recently with opponents of Martin Heidegger doing the same."
Are the opponents of Heidegger associating him with obscurantism, or Marx?  Please disambiguate this sentence!
-- [unsigned]
:This sentence is no longer in the article. -- Beland (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous sentence

message: Does this seem wordy and ambiguous to you, too?
:Obscurantism is opposition to extension or dissemination of knowledge beyond certain limits and to questioning dogmas.
-how about-
:Obscurantism favors limits on the extension and dissemination of knowledge, and on the questioning of dogmas.
Does that sound better?  - Eric 04:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordy Intro? 

message: I think we need to distinguish in this article between accusations of religious obscurantism (i.e. religious officials hiding knowledge because they believe it will harm the faith), and philosophical obscurantism, basically the charge that a rival philsopher's work is deliberate nonsense. Mjk2357 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious vs. Philosophical Obscurantism 

message: I think the real problem of this article is not neutrality, but lack of explicit mention of source.
Who criticized Heideggar, Marx, Derrida, Bill Joy for their obscurantism Where?
Note that "obscurantism" is a polemical rather than descriptive term, often used against opponents on personal (Schopenhauer on Hegel) or ideological grounds, and accusations of incomprehensibility don't equal actual incomprehensibility. The article should be rewritten with this in mind and with sources in order to be more descriptive and less polemical.Ehmhel 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While fully acknowleging the merits of your recent revision on this article, I think your dichotomy is not an exclusive one. A word can be used both to describe and to criticize. It is true that "obscurantism" has gained polemical senses, but that does not mean the term cannot be used to describe. Cosfly 03:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I indicated at the bottom of the Derrida section, it is used descriptively as opposed to polemically. The Obscurantist (upper-case) section also indicates that a person/philosopher can be both obscure, intelligent, and purposeful. Although the term may indeed be used polemically (if it is used at all), pejorative-ness (sic. haha) does not seem to be a defining factor.--Heyitspeter 05:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed 

message: As far as I know, obscurantism is closely related to ambiguous and vague style of writing.
Or even more, (deliberate) ambiguity/vagueness might be the definition of obscurantism.
Anybody knows about this?
:The Residents, Jandek, Austere and other musical artists have purposefully obscured information about themselves for a variety of reasons: shyness, a desire to have more control over their art, wanting to separate personal lives from artistic ones, and/or to try to focus interest on their artwork rather than the trappings and negative consequences The Cult of Personality or "hero worship". Also, some writers using psuedonyms for various reasons (Stephen King writing as "Richard Bachman", for example) - is this considered Obscurantism.  If not, what would be the right label for these concepts & examples?
WinkJunior (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity and Vagueness 

message: This is such a joke article as it currently stands. It is (on July 22-23, 2007; dating seems necessary on a fluid medium like wikipedia) effectively a sandbox for venting anti-postmodernists. Will the interested parties who believe that this seeming neologism is relevant please find some sources that might convince the casual reader that this term is used? Anecdotal evidence about accusations of obscure writing, while hinting that this word may be relevant, don't actually imply that the term is used, and could just as well be included in the parent article of the person being accused. 
Also, please be bold in removing unsourced accusations and polemical diatribes.
Thanks!--Heyitspeter 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the upper-case version deserves a page, but that the lower-case version does not. Giving the lower-case version a page is analogous to creating a page entitled Philosophers that are Jerks; you might be able to find sources for that article, but the page would still be pointless and embarrassing to wikipedia (although it might make a great uncyclopedia entry). EDIT. Can we please just delete the lower-case/common descriptor section? These criticisms and descriptions of individual philosophers can perhaps be moved to their parent articles, if they are not already included.--Heyitspeter 05:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: I think sources are lacking too, but lower-case obscurantism does not seem to be a neologism. Wikipedia defines neologism as "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities.". But lower-case obscurantism do appear in the dictionary.
For example,
Merriam-Webster : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/obscurantism
1 : opposition to the spread of knowledge : a policy of withholding knowledge from the general public
2 a : a style (as in literature or art) characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstruseness b : an act or instance of obscurantism 
- ob·scu·ran·tist  /-&n-tist, -'ran-tist/ noun or adjective 
Dictionary.com : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obscurantism
Moreover, dictionary.com tells us that lower-case obscurantism has come from a french word of origin: 1825–35.
Surely it's not a neologism, isn't it?
So I think the mark "The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline for Neologisms...." blah blah should be deleted.
Cosfly 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that tag. I wasn't sure how to do it, but I meant to put the tag on the upper-half/case part of the article only. I wasn't convinced that the term was used as the article suggested. The only reference provided (at the time) used the term in the lower-case, and my Oxford dictionary did not suggest that the term described a movement, but rather, suggested that the term was a simple adjective that could be applied at random.--Heyitspeter 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a [[Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms|neologism]]

message: The article currently (26/July, 2007.) says 
"Chomsky's opposition to Derrida could arguably be ...... as another example of the broader tension between analytic and Continental philosophy."
Well, does Chomsky have anything to do with analytic philosophy?
Someone who knows well about Chomsky might choose to delete the phrase entirely.
Cosfly 01:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky and Analytic philosophy? 

message: this article has been a polemic against Hegel, Heidegger and Derrida. In the interest of fairness, other controversies about obscurantism should be included, as there are many. I added some but they need further expansion.  Ehmhel 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion and revision of article 

message: A little knocking about here and there through Google and Amazon pursuades me there are plenty of accusations of 'religious obscurantism'.
Well but unfortunately, I could not find reliable sources to clear-up and expand this article.
Cosfly 16:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious obscurantism(in the first sense) needs some clear-ups and expansion! 

message: I have a feeling that this section should be removed.
While Sokal aimed to show that "famous intellectuals [...] have repeatedly abused scientific concepts and terminology" in submitting a paper containing flawed science to Social text, he was not making any general accusation of obscurantism towards these "famous intellectuals".
Sokal even says of a review of his book that the author 'expresses the fear that some readers (and especially non-readers) of our book will jump to the conclusion that all the social sciences are nonsense. But he is careful to emphasise thtat this is not our view'.
The Sokal Affair highlights some interesting points, but directly those of obscurantism.
The 'nonsense' Sokal refers to in the quote in the article is scientific nonsense, not obscurantism. As such, I don't really see how the Sokal affair should be included in an article on obscurantism.
(All quotes here from the preface to the english edition of 'Fashionable Nonesense' by Sokal). 1maskingtape 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sokal 

message: Can someone please explain if there is an difference between Obscurantism and "cover up"? --204.4.131.140 14:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The article currently mentions Friedrich Nietzsche's comment on obscurantism. 
It seems it is criticizing the first, not the second, sense of Obscurantism. If I am right, it would be better to put the Nietzsche's comment within the Section 1.
Well, and.. it is merely my opinion.. the Nietzsche's comment seems to be too obscure(in the second sense) in its own right. Hasn't any academic philosopher criticized Nietzsche of obscurantism(in the second sense?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosfly (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche's comment 

message: Reading through the talk page, it seems clear that many useful suggestions (and many I had considered) are listed here, but no meaningful changes have been made to this page in about a year. Is someone reverting the page back to its flawed state, or are we just not making the changes we're suggesting? I'm going to start watching this page, and though I may not have much time to work on it, I'll try to enact some of the changes suggested by others in my free time. --Pschelden 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take Action! 

message: I wonder if the trend in online media to deliberately not provide links for the source of the content they refer to (as well as the aversion to deep linking from other sites), in an attempt to keep the visitors in their site, could be included in this article, or would better fit somewhere else. Any thoughts? --Waldir talk 17:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the use of "obscurity" for artistic and/or "marketing" purposes is accepted or another term is proferred, it seems to me that a discussion of the purposeful use of obscurity for these and other reasons would be worth a section discussing the history, purpose, and examples. --WinkJunior (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscurantism as method to retain consumers 

message: One of the most common attacks against the Roman Catholic Church is the charge of obscurantism, a charge that became popular during the 18th century Enlightenment. The use of this charge against the Church and against religion on general could perhaps be noted in the article. ADM (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacks on the Roman Catholic Church

message: I took the liberty of removing Chomsky's critique of Derrida. The source text (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html) seemed far too unreliable to cite - it begins with a note that says that the text "has circulated quite a number of times on Usenet, and so far as I know is authentic". The text might or might not be authentic and reflect Chomsky's views, but I don't think this qualifies as a reliable source. Moreover, I'm not quite sure how Chomsky's comments add to the article, since the section about Derrida is already off balance with one overtly long quote. 80.221.53.44 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky's Derrida critique 

message: This article speaks of obscurantism as if it is an actual school of thought, when the word is just a rhetorical epithet hurled against one's enemies. It would be better to give a history of the concept's usage without suggesting that any of the thinkers named are in fact obscurantists, if such persons really exist. The editors are hardly qualified to make such judgments without violating NPOV. JoeFink (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhetoric passing as fact 

message: The opening passage "Ludwig Wittgenstein’s obscurantism is illuminated by the criticism of the limits-of-language proposition presented in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921)" is cited to the wikipedia page on Tractatus. It is certainly a violation of the original research rule and I imagine a violation of some citation rule if there is a specific one about something so blatant as citing another page. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research on Wittgenstein, cite #21

message: I heard it can also take other forms, such as when Person A discovers Person B's secret, and Person B admits it, but Person C, who represents Person B, informs the public that the secret is completely libel and fringe, Person B then tells Person A that Person C is unrelated and saying his own incorrect thoughts. 173.183.66.173 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other forms 

message: The source for the section on Kant seems to be saying Kant's imitators are obscurantists, but not Kant himself. I'll wait for a little while before I try rewording this in case anyone disagrees, but judging by the time stamp on the last edit made to this article no one has been here recently. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Kant may have been obscurant only in the Transcendental Analytic part of his Critique of Pure Reason because he didn't have a clear idea of his topic. In other parts of the book he wrote directly and clearly. Kant's imitators may have been completely obscurant because they may have been fabricating all of their ideas in order to further their purposes, such as defending a variety of theism.Lestrade (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant 

message: Someone's got to include the leading obscurantist of our day in this article. Executive Editor at MC (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, no mention of Judith Butler? 

message: It's worth adding that every single time there's a terrorist attack both law enforcement, governments, and the media wilfully participate in avid obscurantism. It's what the media is known for these days, and sadly also what law enforcement is becoming known for, globally. So it's definitely something incredibly noteworthy. 124.190.207.57 (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern media and terrorist attacks. 

message: Why is there a picture of H. L. Mencken when he's mention nowhere in the article?
76.88.55.202 (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  H. L. Mencken Photo