Obscurantism

[[File:Epistolæ obscurorum virorum, Nordisk familjebok.png|thumb|right|165px|Title page from part 2 of the satirical "Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum" from which the word "obscurantism" originates from.]]
{{logicnav}}
{{cquote|The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.|||[[Carl Sagan]], ''[[The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark]]''<ref> {{cite book |last= Sagan|first=Carl |date=1995 |title= The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark |publisher= Random House|page=27 |isbn=9780394535128}}</ref>}}

'''Obscurantism''' or '''obscurationism''' (from the [[Latin]] ''obscuritas'', "darkness, incomprehensibility") is the act deliberately suppressing of [[fact]]s or full details in a given {{wpl|context||.}} There are two main forms of obscurantism; '''political obscurantism''' (a.k.a. social obscurantism) and '''philosophical obscurantism ''' (a.k.a. intellectual obscurantism). The first being characterized as ''suppression of [[knowledge]] or [[education]]''; which is used authorities, institutions, or individuals intentionally hide information or distort facts to mislead the public or maintain control. The other is characterized by ''deliberate obscurity in communication''; which is when someone uses overly complex, vague, or ambiguous language to obscure meaning, making ideas difficult to understand&nbsp;— sometimes to appear more intelligent or authoritative.

Obscurantism is generally considered an [[anti-intellectual]] [[rhetoric]]al device.<ref>Kjeldgaard-Christiansen, J. (2023). Obscurantism in Academic Writing: What It Is and Why It Is Bad. Leviathan: Interdisciplinary Journal in English, (9). https://doi.org/10.7146/lev92023136279</ref> It is distinguished from [[fallacy of ambiguity]] in that obscurantism is an intentional strategy to obscure understanding, while fallacy of ambiguity is typically either unintentional or due to sloppy [[reasoning]] rather than a deliberate attempt to confuse.

==Origins==
One of the earliest instances addressing obscurantism is by [[Aristotle]], who strongly criticized behaviors that fit the concept, particularly the tactics used by [[sophist]]s to obscure [[truth]] rather than reveal it. The term "obscurantism" emerged proper from the title of the [[Satire|satirical]] work {{wpl|Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum}} (Letters of Obscure Men) from circa 1515–19. The book is based on the intellectual dispute between the [[German]] [[humanist]] {{wpl|Johann Reuchlin}} and the [[Jewish]]-to-[[Catholic]] convert {{wpl|Johannes Pfefferkorn}} over whether all Jewish books should be burned. Pfefferkorn had been granted permission by {{wpl|Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor|Maximilian I}} in 1509 to burn all copies of the Jewish [[Talmud]] in the [[Holy Roman Empire]]; with the satire mocking Pfefferkorn's arguments for burning non-Christian works.<ref>{{cite book |author=<!-- not stated -->|editor-last= Bozman |editor-first=Ernest Franklin |date=1967 |title= Everyman's Encyclopaedia|edition= 5 |volume= 9|publisher=J. M. Dent & Sons |page=261}}</ref>

In the 18<sup>th</sup> century during the [[Age of Enlightenment]], philosophers used the term to refer to enemies of intellectual enlightenment and the spread of knowledge. In the 19<sup>th</sup> century, a distinction was made between obscurantism in [[metaphysics]] and [[theology]].<ref>Buekens, F. and Boudry, M. (2015), The dark side of the loon. Theoria, 81: 126-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12047</ref>

==Application==
===In politics===
Obscurantism is used in politics as means of shaping public opinion and maintaining power by strategically keeping people from fully understanding an issue, a process, or the truth. Therefore making it harder for people to make informed decisions, question authority, and/or hold leaders accountable.

As [[politics]] is in fact politics, politicians use obscurantism to manipulate public perception, avoid accountability and for controlling the narrative. It's generally achieved by {{wpl|Stonewalling|withholding information,}} [[vagueness|avoiding clear answers in interviews or debates]] (to keep options open or avoid controversy), [[deceit|statements that sound meaningful but commit to nothing]], [[Euphemism|using softened language to hide harsh realities]], [[Gish Gallop|flooding the public with irrelevant or misleading details]], [[Jargon|using overly complex or ambiguous language]], [[Argumentum ad hominem|attacking things]] to [[Framing|frame]] them as [[conspiracy]] and [[appeal to emotion|encouraging emotional reactions]] instead of [[rational]] evaluation.<ref>Kraft, Patrick W., and Robert Klemmensen. “Lexical Ambiguity in Political Rhetoric: Why Morality Doesn’t Fit in a Bag of Words.” British Journal of Political Science 54, no. 1 (2024): 201–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342300008X.</ref><ref>Elster, Jon. “Hard and Soft Obscurantism in the Humanities and Social Sciences.” Diogenes 58, no. 1–2 (2011): 159–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192112444984.</ref><ref>HEINKELMANN-WILD, T., ZANGL, B., RITTBERGER, B. and KRIEGMAIR, L. (2023), Blame shifting and blame obfuscation: The blame avoidance effects of delegation in the European Union. European Journal of Political Research, 62: 221-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12503</ref><ref>Agger, B. (2008), Political Sentences: Anti-Intellectualism, Obscurantism and Polymorphous Perversity. Sociological Inquiry, 78: 423-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00249.x</ref>

Obscurantist practices are damaging to [[democracies]], as when political discourse becomes too confusing or dishonest, citizens start to withdraw from engagement (i.e. non-engagement) and/or cling to [[Genuine but insignificant cause|simplified narratives]]. As obscurantism leads to inability to hold correct parties accountable, this damages public trust in political institutions and undermines informed political democratic participation. This then can lead to increased [[Other|polarization]] and empower [[authoritarian]] tendencies.<ref>Henrik Serup Christensen; Knowing and distrusting: how political trust and knowledge shape direct-democratic participation. European Societies 2018; 20 (4): 572–594. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2017.1402124</ref><ref>Schulz, W. Young people’s trust in institutions, civic knowledge and their dispositions toward civic engagement. Large-scale Assess Educ 12, 23 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-024-00210-1</ref><ref>Devine, D. Does Political Trust Matter? A Meta-analysis on the Consequences of Trust. Polit Behav 46, 2241–2262 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09916-y</ref><ref>Miranda, Daniel, Juan Carlos Castillo, Catalina Miranda, and José Daniel Conejeros. “Trust in Political Institutions and Support for Authoritarianism: Latin American Students – Does Civic Knowledge Make a Difference?” Chapter. In Psychology of Democracy: Of the People, By the People, For the People, edited by Ashley Weinberg, 173–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.</ref><ref>Frantz, E., Kendall-Taylor, A., Şimşek, C. et al. Democratic Backsliding and Endogenous Polarization. Polit Behav (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-025-10094-8</ref>

===In pseudoscience===
{{cquote|With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or [[probability]]) there falls one of the defences of obscurantism which bar the way of [[scientific]] advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.|||Sir [[Karl Popper]]<ref>''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'' by Karl R. Popper (1959) Hutchinson.</ref>{{rp|280}}}}
[[Pseudoscience]] and obscurantism go hand in hand, since the former can be used to obscure real scientific understanding by promoting false or misleading claims that appear credible but lack scientific rigor. Psuedoscience thrives when access to genuine scientific knowledge is limited, or when people are discouraged from [[critical thinking]]. For example; an authoritarian country suppressing real science in favor of [[ideological]]ly acceptable but false beliefs&nbsp;— resulting in such nonsense as [[Lysenkoism]] in the [[Soviet Union]].<ref>Vasily V. Ptushenko, The pushback against state interference in science: how Lysenkoism tried to suppress Genetics and how it was eventually defeated, Genetics, Volume 219, Issue 4, December 2021, iyab162, https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyab162</ref><ref>Michael D. Gordin, “Lysenkoism,” Encyclopedia of the History of Science (February 2022) doi: 10.34758/d5bq-k368</ref> In addition, the obscurantian techniques of [[Jargon|confusing language]], [[appeal to authority]] and/or [[appeal to emotion|emotional manipulation]] are used to avoid scrutiny and thus keep people uninformed or misinformed, either intentionally or through neglect.<ref>{{cite book |last=Sagan |first= Carl|date=1997 |title= The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark|url= https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Demon_haunted_World/5QpLlsPPM_YC|publisher=  Random House Publishing Group |isbn= 9780345409461}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Pigliucci |first=Massimo |date=2010 |title=Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk |url= https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nonsense_on_Stilts/aC8Baky2qTcC |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=9780226667874 }}</ref>

In addition, obscurantism and science [[denialism]] can reinforce each other. This is particularly visible in authoritarian or ideologically rigid environments, when it is used to control public discourse (rejecting [[evolution]] in favor of [[religious]] narratives) for the sake of political or financial interests (denying [[climate change]] to protect [[fossil fuel]] industries) and to undermine opposition ([[Snarl word|labeling]] dissenting scientists as “[[elite]]s” or “[[Patriotism#Unpatriotic|unpatriotic]]”). As such, by muddling or hiding scientific truths, one makes people question or reject science. By attacking intellectualism or expertise, denialism seems empowering or independent. And by promoting [[conspiracy]] or [[mysticism]], pseudoscience fills the void left by real science.<ref>{{cite book |last= McIntyre |first= Lee|date= 2020|title=The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Scientific_Attitude/9L34DwAAQBAJ |publisher=MIT Press  |isbn= 9780262538930}}</ref><ref>Godulla, A., Seibert, D., & Klute, T. (2024). What Is Denialism? An Examination and Classification of Definitional Approaches and Relevant Actors. Journalism and Media, 5(1), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia5010010</ref><ref>Hansson SO. Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2017 Jun;63:39-47. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002. Epub 2017 May 31. PMID: 28629651.</ref>

===In religion===
[[Religious leaders|Religious authorities]] have historically used obscurantism to maintain control over interpretations of [[sacred text]]s or [[dogma]]. By limiting the parameters on who can read specific religious writings and/or use hard-to-understand language during rituals, this allows them to stop ordinary people from challenging their authority. Some religions go further and have secret teachings meant only for initiates or clergy (such as [[Kabbalah]] in [[Judaism]], certain [[Buddhist]] [[Tantra]]s, or [[Gnostic]] [[Christian]] texts), which effectively serve to preserve hierarchy of knowledge and distinguishes insiders from outsiders.<ref>Sinnemäki, K., & Saarikivi, J. (Accepted/In press). Sacred language. In H. Nesi, & P. Milin (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Third ed.). (Reference Collection in Social Sciences). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95504-1.00340-9</ref><ref>Vestrucci, A. Language of Religion, Religions as Languages. Introduction to the Special Issue ‘Religions and Languages: A Polyphony of Faiths’. SOPHIA 61, 1–7 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-022-00912-5</ref>

Religious texts or doctrines can be intentionally vague or symbolic, allowing multiple interpretations. This then encourages faith-based acceptance by the followers, rather than rational scrutiny, and giving the leaders interpretive power. In addition, religious rituals often involve complex ceremonies, chants, or symbolism that is hard to understand without instruction. Therefore creating a sense of awe, mystery, and dependence on those who “know” how to interpret or perform the ritual.<ref>Hauksson-Tresch, N. The Religious Sign from a Semiotic Perspective a Social-Semiotic Interpretation of the Challenges Presented by the Concept of Religious Sign in the Context of French Schools. Int J Semiot Law 37, 1259–1284 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10075-2</ref><ref>McGlashan, A. R. “The Use of Symbols in Religion from the Perspective of Analytical Psychology.” Religious Studies 25, no. 4 (1989): 501–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412500020072.</ref>

There are several historical examples showing how religious obscurantism has had major social or political consequences. During the time from about the 5<sup>th</sup> to the 16<sup>th</sup> century, the [[Bible]] was mostly written in [[Latin]], a language that ordinary people couldn't read. Only members of the clergy had the ability to understand the scriptures and offer religious advice. This then gave the [[Catholic Church]] the power to control religious teachings, education, and [[moral]] standards. It also meant that most people couldn't read or interpret religious texts on their own, which changed only with the [[Reformation]].<ref> McLean, Matthew, 'The Latin Bible from the Late Middle Ages to Junius-Tremellius', in Jennifer Powell McNutt, and Herman J. Selderhuis (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Bible and the Reformation, Oxford Handbooks (2024; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 Nov. 2024), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198753186.013.6, accessed 1 Dec. 2025.</ref><ref>Languages in the Lutheran Reformation: Textual Networks and the Spread of Ideas. Taylor & Francis, 2025. {{isbn|9781040774328}}</ref><ref>Heresy and Literacy, 1000-1530. Cambridge University Press, 1996. {{isbn|9780521575768}}</ref><ref>Hamlin, Hannibal, 'Reading the Bible in Tudor England', Oxford Handbook Topics in Literature (online edn, Oxford Academic, 16 Dec. 2013), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935338.013.77, accessed 1 Dec. 2025.</ref>

Use of obscurantism was present in [[Missionary|missionary work]] during the [[colonial]]-era, as European missionaries often used obscure or complex [[theological]] explanations when converting {{wpl|indigenous populations||.}} By making Christianity seem mysterious or only fully clear through the guidance of religious leaders, it helped those in power control the people they colonized by connecting obedience to religious knowledge.<ref>Lalmuansanga, Jerry. “COLONIALISM, CHRISTIAN MISSION, AND INDIGENOUS: AN EXAMINATION FROM ASIAN INDIGENOUS,” n.d.</ref><ref> Etherington, Norman. "The History of Christian Missions to Africa." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. 30 Oct. 2019; Accessed 1 Dec. 2025. https://oxfordre.com/africanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-56. </ref>

===In business and law===
Obscurantism is also evident in the world of [[business]]. Companies often use complex language, technical [[jargon]], or long explanations (i.e. legalese) to make it hard for stakeholders&nbsp;— as customers in general&nbsp;— to understand what's really going on. For example, financial statements filled with hard-to-understand accounting terms, product descriptions that hide potential risks or limitations, and investor documents that keep important details buried (such as hiding extra costs or responsibilities). The reason for this is to ''seem'' honest and open, while actually hiding bad performance, risks, or weaknesses in their strategies.<ref>Wayne Guay, Delphine Samuels, Daniel Taylor, Guiding through the Fog: Financial statement complexity and voluntary disclosure, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Volume 62, Issues 2–3, 2016, Pages 234-269, ISSN 0165-4101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2016.09.001. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165410116300489)</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Brown |first=Michael |date=February 22, 2019 |title= Firms obscure bad news in financial reports, study suggests|url= https://www.ualberta.ca/en/folio/2019/02/firms-obscure-bad-news-in-financial-reports-study-suggests.html|website=University of Alberta |access-date=December 2, 2025}}</ref><ref>João Antônio Salvador de Souza, Jean Carlo Rissatti, Suliani Rover, José Alonso Borba, The linguistic complexities of narrative accounting disclosure on financial statements: An analysis based on readability characteristics, Research in International Business and Finance, Volume 48, 2019, Pages 59-74, ISSN 0275-5319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2018.12.008. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0275531918306482)</ref><ref>Besuglov, E., Crasselt, N. The effect of readability and language choice in management accounting reports on risk-taking: an experimental study. J Bus Econ 91, 5–33 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-00980-4</ref><ref>Riley, Jennifer, and Eileen Taylor. 2018. "The Inconsistent Effects of Plain English Disclosures on Nonprofessional Investors’ Risk Judgments" International Journal of Financial Studies 6, no. 1: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs6010025</ref>

Obscurantism is also connected to corporate {{wpl|information asymmetry||,}} where employees, customers, and investors often get incomplete or carefully controlled information. When companies hide details about product problems, make important decisions in secret, and use [[marketing]] that highlights benefits while hiding limitations or privacy costs, it makes it hard for stakeholders to make smart choices. This keeps a lot of power in the hands of those at the top.<ref>Akerlof, George A. “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84, no. 3 (1970): 488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431.</ref>

Arguably intellectual property (IP) protections suffer from obscurantism as well. While IP protections ''are'' reasonable, they can also be used to hide how things are made, the rules behind certain calculations, how prices are set, and how businesses compete with each other. This allows firms to gain an advantage not simply through innovation, but through deliberate secrecy.<ref>Asress Adimi Gikay, Trade secrecy in automated decisions: against the myth of irreconcilability and the imposition of patents, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Volume 20, Issue 8, August 2025, Pages 552–561, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf038 </ref><ref>Stephen Glaeser, The effects of proprietary information on corporate disclosure and transparency: Evidence from trade secrets, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Volume 66, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 163-193, ISSN 0165-4101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.04.002. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165410118300326)</ref><ref>Daniel Bradley, Dan Hu, Xiaojing Yuan, Chi Zhang, Trade secret protection and product market dynamics, Journal of Corporate Finance, Volume 83, 2023, 102470, ISSN 0929-1199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2023.102470. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119923001190)</ref><ref> Bently, Lionel, and Tanya Aplin, 'Patents and Trade Secrets', in Neil Wilkof, Shamnad Basheer, and Irene Calboli (eds), Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights, 2nd edn (Oxford, 2023; online edn, Oxford Law Pro, 18 May 2023), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192844477.003.0003, accessed 2 Dec. 2025.</ref>

Of course, there's also ''linguistic insulation'' which manifests as [[management speak]] in {{wpl|corporate culture||,}} where [[euphemism]]s can hide the real reasons behind decisions. Such as calling layoffs “rightsizing” or “workforce optimization”, or wage stagnation “market realignment” or using vague “vision statements” to avoid accountability. This creates an obscurantist environment where truth tends to be softened or fully concealed.<ref>{{cite web |author = <!-- not stated -->|date= November 8, 2020|title=Circling Back on Corporate Speak: The History and Impact of Business Jargon |url=https://www.rivier.edu/academics/blog-posts/circling-back-on-corporate-speak-the-history-and-impact-of-business-jargon/ |website= Rivier University|access-date=December 2, 2025}}</ref><ref>Jaworska, Sylvia. “Corporate Discourse.” Chapter. In The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies, edited by Anna De Fina and Alexandra Georgakopoulou, 666–86. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.</ref>

===In art and literature===
{{Expand section}}
Some writers or artists on purpose make things unclear to add a sense of mystery, encourage people to think deeply, or to signal intellectual sophistication. This is especially evident in experimental writing, abstract [[art]], or complicated poetry.

===In everyday use===
{{Expand section}}
Obscurantism is also present in ''your'' [[real life|everyday life]]! Due to quirks of human nature, people use vague or technical language in conversations to dodge giving straight answers, keep their personal information private, or maintain some distance from others.

==Thinkers and philosophies commonly associated with obscurantism==
===Plato===
Aspects of [[Plato]]'s philosophy have at times been accused of obscurantism. Firstly, because of his dialogical style, as Plato wrote in dialogues rather than direct treatises. The “answers” are often indirect, through [[Socratic method|Socratic questioning]], leaving conclusions ambiguous. He also expressed his ideas through stories or symbolic tales, such as the [[Allegory of the cave]], instead of just directly stating his ideas, which might seem confusing or deliberately hidden. In addition, Plato's theory of forms, which involves abstract and non-physical ideas like "the Good" and "the Beautiful," is very difficult to understand. This had the effect that later thinkers, especially those in the Neoplatonic tradition, focused on the covert or mystical ideas in Plato's writings, under the belief that Plato meant for his ideas to be understood only by a select group of intellectual elites. 

Plato's contribution in '''political obscurantism''' comes mainly in his belief that regular people don't have the knowledge or wisdom needed to rule effectively. He thought that only those who have deep philosophical understanding can make fair and wise political choices. In his work ''The Republic'', Plato suggests that education should be tightly controlled and that knowledge should be shared carefully (making for what would be a [[self-fulfilling prophecy]]). Only the "philosopher-rulers" are allowed to know certain important truths, and this information is not given to the general public. He also supports the use of myths or carefully chosen truths, called "[[noble lie]]s," to help [[Communitarianism|keep society united and ensure that citizens follow the rules]]. 

Therefore Plato's views meet the obscurantist conditions of '''restricting access to knowledge''' (ordinary citizens are deliberately kept from understanding philosophical truths), '''myth-making for control''' (the “noble lie” functions as a tool of ideological control) and '''complex metaphysics as political justification''' (the abstract ''Theory of Forms'' can be seen as supporting a system where people who understand the true nature of reality, known as the Forms, have the right to lead those who do not grasp this deeper knowledge.)

As such, both ancient and modern critics often argue this makes Plato's ideas unnecessarily opaque, and his theory of forms adding an extra level of complexity that isn't really needed. Aristotle, who was Plato's student, occasionally criticized Plato for being too abstract and for introducing ideas such as Forms that didn't seem connected to the real world. Although Aristotle didn't call Plato "obscurantist," he suggested that Plato's approach might be confusing or not very useful in practice. Critics such as [[Karl Popper]] famously argued that Plato’s political philosophy lays the groundwork for [[totalitarian]] thinking. Popper viewed Plato’s philosopher-king as a proto-authoritarian model that depends on secrecy, restricted knowledge, and elite control.<ref name="PopperOSAIE">{{cite book |last= Popper|first=Karl |date=1947|orig-date=1945 |title=The Open Society and Its Enemies |url= (vol.1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.59272 (vol.2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.77661|access-date=November 30, 2025}}</ref>{{rp|7-169 (vol.1)}}<ref>Cimino, A. Justice, power, and truth: Plato and twentieth-century biopower in Karl Popper and Jan Patočka. Stud East Eur Thought 75, 691–708 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-022-09500-2</ref> Modern scholars have occasionally used the term “obscurantist” in describing certain Neoplatonic readings or in criticizing Plato’s complex dialectical style, though usually with nuance.

===Sophism===
Historically, [[sophism]] refers to reasoning that appears sound but is actually fallacious, often used to win arguments rather than seek truth, i.e. deceptive or specious argumentation. Sophism therefore can serve as a method of obscurantism, since obscurantism aims to conceal truth, and sophism provides misleading arguments that help achieve that concealment.<ref>{{cite book |last=  Schiappa|first= Edward|date= 2003|orig-date=1991|title=Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric |publisher= University of South Carolina Press|page= 37, 57, 165|isbn=9781570035210}}</ref>

In his text {{wpl|Sophistical Refutations|''Sophistical Refutations''| (''Sophistici Elenchi''),}} Aristotle analyzed how sophists used [[jargon|misleading language]], [[equivocation]], [[ambiguity]] and [[deception|arguments that appear to prove something but actually hide fallacies]], which are now considered ''obscurantist techniques''. Aristotle treats them as [[intellectual dishonesty]] because they obscure the truth rather than clarify it.

Though speaking of Aristotle…

===Aristotelianism===
Although [[Aristotle]] himself proclaimed to be the champion of reason and clarity, there has been scrutiny regarding his contributions to the art of obscurantism. Actually, as early as in 5<sup>th</sup> century CE, Aristotle had been accused of being an obscurantist by Neo-Platonist {{wpl|Ammonius Hermiae||.}} Long after his death, Aristotle's philosophy was used&nbsp;— particularly by religious institutions during [[medieval]] times&nbsp;— in (political) obscurantist ways; to control knowledge, suppress dissent, and maintain intellectual orthodoxy. 

Firstly, in connection to medieval {{wpl|scholasticism}} and religious control. In the Middle Ages, Aristotle's writings were brought back to Europe, largely through [[Islamic]] scholars such as {{wpl|Averroes}} and [[Avicenna]]. Subsequently scholastic thinkers, particularly [[Thomas Aquinas]], would combine Aristotle's ideas with [[Christian]] teachings. But over time, Aristotelianism turned into something rigid, where his writings were seen as "the absolute truth" rather than just thoughts to be examined.<ref>{{cite book |last=  Lindberg|first=David C. |date= 2010|title=The Beginnings of Western Science |publisher= University of Chicago Press| isbn=9780226482040 }}</ref> Because of this, church leaders blocked ideas that went against Aristotle or that used his work in ways that didn’t fit their religious beliefs; such as with [[Galileo]] and his [[heliocentric]] theory.<ref>{{cite book |last= Finocchiaro|first=Maurice A. |date= 1989|title= The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History |publisher= University of California Press|page= 7-9 |isbn=9780520066625}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Merrill |first= Ronald T.|date= 2011|title=Our Magnetic Earth: The Science of Geomagnetism |publisher= University of Chicago Press |page=115-116 |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Our_Magnetic_Earth/auZaEAAAQBAJ|isbn=9780226520537}}</ref>

The strict following of Aristotle and the refusal to accept new scientific ideas was viewed by thinkers during the Enlightenment as a type of obscurantism.  Enlightenment thinkers such as [[Kant]], [[Voltaire]], and {{wpl|Diderot}} viewed medieval Aristotelianism as mystifying and a hindrance to [[progress]]. They linked Aristotle's scholastic tradition with opaque reasoning, rigid hierarchy, and the suppression of critical inquiry. To them, obscurantism meant the use of complicated, abstract, and overly formal language by scholastic philosophers who highly respected Aristotle.<ref>ten Hagen, S. (2025). "Chapter 5 Scholasticism as a Scholarly Vice Term: from the Middle Ages to the Twenty-First Century". In Vices of the Learned. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004725058_006</ref><ref> Ott, Walter, 'The Rejection of Aristotelianism', Causation and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Philosophy (Oxford, 2009; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Sept. 2009), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570430.003.0006, accessed 16 Oct. 2025.</ref>

Additionally in modern times, Aristotle's {{wpl|virtue ethics}} has drawn some criticisms that overlap with obscurantist concerns. Issues regarding lack of clear action-guidance, dependency on tradition or [[Communitarianism|community standards]] (with the the lack of universality being evasive or opaque; opening doors for relativism, insularity, and/or elitism) and the conceptual murkiness in defining the "Idealized Moral Agent".<ref> Austin, N. (2017). Normative Virtue Theory in Theological Ethics. Religions, 8(10), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8100211</ref><ref>Begley AM. Practising virtue: a challenge to the view that a virtue centred approach to ethics lacks practical content. Nurs Ethics. 2005 Nov;12(6):622-37. doi: 10.1191/0969733005ne832oa. PMID: 16312090.</ref><ref> Svensson, Frans, and Jens Johansson, 'Objections to Virtue Ethics', in Nancy E. Snow (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Virtue, Oxford Handbooks (2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 6 Dec. 2017), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199385195.013.39, accessed 16 Oct. 2025.</ref>

===Kantianism===
[[Ironically]], despite Immanuel Kant's opposition towards obscurantism, Kantian philosophy is accused of being obscurantist. The charge usually comes from philosophers who believe that his method or terminology makes his claims unnecessarily opaque or hides assumptions behind complicated argument structures.

One reason is that Kant's writing uses a lot of complex and specialized language, especially in his major works such as the ''Critique of Pure Reason''. This dense use of technical terms (“transcendental,” “synthetic a priori,” “things-in-themselves,” “categories of the understanding,” etc.) can make his ideas hard to follow. Critics argue that this complexity actually makes his ideas harder to understand rather than easier.

Several philosophers&nbsp;— notably {{wpl|G. E. Schulze||,}} {{wpl|J. G. Fichte||,}} {{wpl|Heinrich Heine|Heine,}} {{wpl|Schopenhauer}} and later [[Nietzsche]] and [[Heidegger]]&nbsp;— argued that Kant’s appeal to unknowable “things in themselves” is mysterious or incoherent. Accusing Kant introduces something crucial for his theory, but because of how he defines it, it becomes impossible to know, which makes the base of his system unclear. Ambiguity regarding the boundaries of knowledge arises from Kant's claim that we can only know appearances, not things as they are in themselves. Critics have pointed out that this view may be internally inconsistent or rely on unclear distinctions. Because of this, they argue that Kant is using the term "transcendental idealism" to obscure rather than resolve the underlying issues.

Despite most of the fiercest critics being {{wpl|Irrationalism|philosophical irrationalists||,}} even early analytic philosophers, particularly in the late 1800s and early 1900s, often criticized German [[idealism]], including the work of Kant, for being too unclear and not strict enough in its reasoning.

Defenders argue that Kant’s difficulty as a reflection of conceptual innovation, not intentional obscurity. Kant purposely changed the way metaphysics was expressed. His writing is complex because he was building a fresh philosophical system, not keeping anything secret. Modern commentators deem that his system ''is'' hard to understand, but ''not'' confusing. They explain that it's technical because it tries to show how knowledge, representation, and experience can exist. Defenders also emphasize that studying Kant helps improve clarity, that Kant's arguments are difficult not because they are deliberately unclear, but because they are deeply complex and require careful thought to understand.

===Hegelianism===
[[Hegel]]’s philosophy has often been accused of obscurantism, particularly by his critics such as Karl Popper, [[Bertrand Russell]] and (especially) his arch-nemesis {{wpl|Arthur Schopenhauer||.}} Hegel's writing style is considered very dense, technical, as well as him piling on concepts atop one another, which is why many readers consider Hegel's work to be impenetrable. Though some of his fiercest critics go as far as to accuse Hegel of being ''deliberately'' obfuscating.<ref>{{cite book |last=  Russell|first= Bertrand|orig-date=1945|date= 2004|title= History of Western Philosophy (Routledge Classics) |publisher= Routledge |chapter=22. "Hegel" |isbn= 9780415325059}}</ref><ref name="PopperOSAIE"/>{{rp|1-76 (vol.2)}}

In his work, Hegel attempts to explain ''all reality'' through his [[Dialectics|dialectical system]], with this undertaking being so ambitious that it comes off as being mystical. To critics, the attempt to derive reality from a single dialectical progression is a metaphysical overreach, either mystical or theological under the surface and lacking in empirical grounding. Thus his critics deem that Hegel obscures reality with system-building rather than clarifying it, with the [[Style over substance|grandiosity]] of his work serving as kind of obscurantism to cover up his failures as a philosopher. Additionally, Hegel's dialectical method appears opaque and he insists that concepts develop through “contradiction,” “negation,” and “sublation,” but he rarely explains the method schematically. Instead, he demonstrates it inside complex discussions. Therefore those unfamiliar with his whole system see this as obscure or intentionally ambiguous.

Additionally, Hegel's politics drew some scrutiny, as many [[liberal]]s and leftists of the era accused Hegel of “obscurantism” in a political sense, that his philosophy concealed real political or material conditions behind abstraction. Hegel's praise of the Prussian state seemed like metaphysical justification of authority, with [[Karl Marx]] famously criticizing Hegel for “mystifying” real social relations behind abstract categories.<ref>{{cite book |last= Marx|first= Karl|date=2024|orig-date=1843 |title=Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right |url= https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Hegel_s_Philosophy_of_Right/XVLcEAAAQBAJ |publisher=Marchen |page= 190|isbn= 979-8369729632|access-date=November 11, 2025}}</ref>

===Karl Marx===
[[Karl Marx]] and [[Marxist]] philosophy have indeed been accused of obscurantism, though this accusation comes from specific critics and contexts. Marx’s writing, especially in works such as ''[[Das Kapital]]'', is dense and theoretical. He blends philosophy, economics, and [[history]] using complex terminology (e.g., “commodity fetishism,” “base and superstructure”). His critics argue that this technical and abstract style makes Marx’s work difficult for the average reader to access. This is then viewed as obscurantist, either unintentionally because of its complexity or, in some interpretations, on purpose to give Marxism the aura of scientific authority.

Some analytic philosophers, including [[Karl Popper]], pointed out that Marxism was [[unfalsifiable]] and overly abstract, which they considered a type of intellectual obscurantism. Popper specifically called Marxism a "pseudoscience" because it stopped being open to criticism, mainly because of its complicated ideas. During the [[Cold War]], some people from the West also claimed that Marxist theories in universities were intentionally made complicated to hide class conflicts or support political control.

Marxists also defend against claims of obscurantism by stating that the ideology's complexity is simply a matter of the rigor and abstraction required to analyze economic structures and social relations scientifically. Karl Marx himself stated that more complicated theories were needed to properly understand how [[capitalism]] really works; as to avoid straying into “vulgar economics” and simplistic social theories.

===Heidegger===
Philosophy of [[Martin Heidegger]] has frequently been accused of obscurantism, by analytic philosophers, continental thinkers, political critics, and some contemporary scholars. The charge typically centers on his ambiguous/[[Circular reasoning|circular formulations]], refusal to provide a clear argumentative structure, heavy usage of metaphor and poetic language, shifting definitions of core terms (e.g., Being, Dasein, Ereignis) and inventing etymologies and unusual German compounds. Whether this reflects a deliberate mystification or simply the difficulty of his project remains a major interpretive dispute.<ref name="Wrathall2010">Wrathall, Mark A. “Philosophers, Thinkers, and Heidegger’s Place in the History of Being.” Chapter. In Heidegger and Unconcealment: Truth, Language, and History, 177–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.</ref>

Contemporaries&nbsp;— such as {{wpl|Hannah Arendt||,}} [[Theodor W. Adorno]] and especially {{wpl|Rudolf Carnap}}&nbsp;— charged Heidegger with obscurantism. In terms of Carnap, he famously criticized Heidegger’s language as nonsensical. In his ''“The Elimination of Metaphysics”'', Carnap argued that Heidegger’s use of terms such as “Nothing nothings” involved [[Deepity|pseudo-statements that only seem meaningful]]. For Carnap and other [[Logical positivism|logical positivists]], this made Heidegger’s writing an example of metaphysical obscurantism.<ref name="Wrathall2010"/>

After the [[World War II|Second World War]], there were moral and political criticisms of Heidegger's work. Scholars such as [[Jürgen Habermas]] pointed out that Heidegger's writing style could give a sense of ''authoritarian mystique'', suggesting that conceptual obscurity which made it harder to hold him politically accountable. This was especially concerning because of Heidegger's association with the [[Nazis]] before and during the war.<ref>Richard J. Bernstein, The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity (MIT Press, 1992), ch. 8</ref><ref>Julian Young, Heidegger, Philosophy, Nazism (Cambridge University Press, 1997), esp. pp. 76–83</ref>

Modern researchers usually present the accusation of obscurantism in one of two ways: either as '''''legitimate complexity''''' or '''''unnecessary opacity'''''. The former camp argues that Heidegger's subject matter&nbsp;— being, temporality, worldhood&nbsp;— needs new language that can't be fully captured with regular words. From this point of view, the challenge he faces is seen as an important part of philosophy, not a way to avoid hard questions. The latter camp deems that Heidegger sometimes intentionally used a confusing style, which made it harder to evaluate his ideas objectively. Critics such as {{wpl|Thomas Sheehan (philosopher)|Thomas Sheehan}} have pointed out that his language often complicates simple concepts.<ref>{{cite book |last=Sheehan |first=Thomas |date= 2014|title= Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Making_Sense_of_Heidegger/9uDaDwAAQBAJ |publisher= Rowman & Littlefield International|isbn=9781783481200 |access-date=November 30, 2025}}</ref>

===Leo Strauss===
Work of {{wpl|Leo Strauss}}&nbsp;— an American scholar of political philosophy&nbsp;— reshaped how political theory is studied, and it indirectly influenced a generation of policymakers and intellectuals. Why Strauss is considered an obscurantist, is because of his famous claim that many pre-modern philosophers wrote esoterically. In his book ''Persecution and the Art of Writing'' (1952), Strauss argued that thinkers from Plato to [[Maimonides]] often concealed their true teachings behind layers of rhetoric to protect themselves from persecution and to prevent dangerous ideas from reaching unprepared readers.<ref>Batnitzky, Leora, "Leo Strauss", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/strauss-leo/>.</ref>

As Strauss himself insists that careful readers can uncover “hidden” or “latent” meanings in the classics, critics accuse him of encouraging cryptic interpretation, using a method that is hard to [[Falsifiability|falsify]] and recommending philosophical secrecy. More passive scholarship suggests that while Strauss identified a real historical phenomenon (esoteric writing existed), he overstated its pervasiveness and that his method encourages readers to search for hidden meaning even where none exists. A harsher variety of his philosophy, such as from {{wpl|Shadia Drury}} and {{wpl|Quentin Skinner}}&nbsp;— link Straussianism with suspicion toward liberal democracy or transparency. They deem that Strauss encourages undemocratic [[elitism]] and justifies withholding truth from the masses, as well as Strauss practicing an interpretive method that twists texts to “say anything”.<ref name="Drury1988"/>{{rp|193-194}}<ref>{{cite book |last= Pangle|first= Thomas L.|date= 2006|title=Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy |publisher= Johns Hopkins University Press|page=20-23, 32, 59 |isbn=9780801889585 }}</ref>

Indeed, Strauss helped reintroduce Plato's "noble lie", which shares the mechanics of obscurantism, whereby its deliberate concealment of truth is [[framing|framed]] as "ethically and politically justifiable". In practice, it is a mix of selective truth, myth-making, and moral framing.<ref name="Drury1988">{{cite book |last= Drury |first=Shadia B. |date=1988 |title=Political Ideas Of Leo Strauss |publisher= Palgrave Macmillan UK|isbn= 9781349191284}}</ref>{{rp|169}}

===Postmodernism===
Some critics argue that [[postmodernism]] encourages obscurantism through its use of complex language, ambiguous concepts, and skepticism toward stable meanings or objective truths. Philosophers and scientists - most famously [[Alan Sokal]] and {{wpl|Jean Bricmont}} - have claimed that these features can obscure weak argumentation, critical evaluation difficult and allow it to become a [[rhetoric]]al shield.<ref>{{cite book |author1=  Alan D. Sokal |author2= Jean Bricmont |date=1999 |title=Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science |publisher=  ST MARTINS PRESS (NY) |isbn= 9780312204075}}</ref><ref>Bricmont, Jean. “The Crisis of Science and the Misuse of Mathematics by Postmodern Philosophers.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 53 (2003): 83–98.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Eagleton|first=Terry |date= 1996|title=The Illusions of Postmodernism  |publisher=Wiley  |isbn= 9780631203230}}</ref><ref>Turner, Stephen. “The Sokal Hoax: A Postmodern Reckoning.” In The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism, edited by Steven Connor, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 83–101.</ref> 

Other scholars counter that obscurantism is not an inherent feature of postmodernism, but rather a consequence of its misuse. According to this view, postmodern critiques of [[foundationalism]], objectivity, and meta-narratives do not entail a rejection of clarity, rigor, or intelligibility. Instead, they question claims to universal or absolute justification while permitting context-dependent standards such as coherence, explanatory power, and historical situatedness. From this perspective, obscurity in some postmodern works is attributed to rhetorical excess, imprecise terminology, or inappropriate borrowings from technical disciplines, rather than to postmodernism’s core philosophical commitments. Supporters maintain that the complexity of postmodern theory may reflect the nature of the subjects it examines and does not necessarily indicate evasiveness or a lack of argumentative rigor.<ref>McGowan, J. (1991). Postmodernism and Its Critics. Cornell University Press. {{isbn|9780801424946}}</ref><ref>Holtz P. Does Postmodernism Really Entail a Disregard for the Truth? Similarities and Differences in Postmodern and Critical Rationalist Conceptualizations of Truth, Progress, and Empirical Research Methods. Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 17;11:545959. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.545959. PMID: 33041913; PMCID: PMC7527490.</ref>

==How to combat obscurantism?==
Here are few thumb-rules:
* Look for clear answers to direct questions
* Observe when explanations become complex without necessity
* Just like in {{wpl|Ace Attorney||;}} contradictions beget contradictions. Find the contradiction and from there, the [[bullshit]] starts to unravel.
* Compare multiple sources (not associated with claim-maker either philosophically or politically)
* Seek out independent fact-checking

==See also==
*[[Coverup]]

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Anti-intellectualism]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Fallacies of ambiguity| ]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Morality]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Categories: Anti-intellectualism, Business, Culture, Deceit, Fallacies of ambiguity, Law, Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Religion