Let’s talk about the difference between words and language. College words, or academic terminology, or sociolinguistic nomenclature, or intertextual syllabics if you will, exist for the same reason as to why any scholarly language exists: To make knowledge inaccessible to common people.
This is not to be mistaken for language, language is lovely, it permits us to furnish our thoughts with beauty. Everyone enjoys new and interesting language, but good language is intuitive; It explains itself along the way.
It also affords us credibility and trust. A rich language shows you read a lot, and study things, it is a way to show people you know what you’re talking about. So why is it then, that some language produces poetry, prose, intrigue and allure, whilst other language does the opposite? What is the difference between eloquent writing and dense writing?
It is because the etymological metaphysical conceptualisation of language begins with a prototextual paramodality, a sort of ludomonic characteristic within a narrational lateralism, to explain it in simple terms.
I’m fucking with you of course, but in egghead terms, what I am saying is true: Language is manufactured through its roots. And scholars use Latin and Greek roots rather than English roots, because common people speak English. Truth is that you can learn a lot of college words just by reading a basic medical glossary, but no one ever explains to you how that’s the way things work.
Obviously English is also rooted in Latin, but they skip a step to make sure language is obscure. In fact obscure is a good example here, that’s actually a Latin word that’s been introduced into English in a way which allows a sane person to understand it.
Often academics will say that their terminology is produced in a way as to permit specificity, however if you ask them to define these words debates will frequently ensue. Ask any egghead to tell you what poststructuralism is for instance, if you press them on it enough then they will wheel out a piano and start playing ragtime music whilst a giant shepherd’s crook pulls you out of the room.
So we’ve gotten to an absurd point in modern education, where because of how education is a commodity to be bought and sold on the market, and because knowledge is so easily accessible on the internet and through mass production, universities and colleges are no longer in the education business, but rather the illiteracy business.
They need to make sure that their knowledge is unintelligible to people who cannot pay for their services, they remain in business by producing illiterate populations.
In a privately owned education system, ignorance is demand for their supply. In fact, ignorance is the market itself. This is why universities have boards of trustees who are dedicated to forwarding business interests over public welfare, kind of a like a political lobbying system, except for education.
Reality of the matter is that if universities weren’t built on a history of feudalism, segregation and rigid structures of nobility, most of their purpose would’ve been made redundant with public libraries. You don’t need a philosophy class when you have philosophy books.
So they invent new philosophy that is intentionally impenetrable and seemingly without purpose, good examples being Derrida or Deleuze, who basically devote themselves to self-defeating and circular systems of analysis that become completely detached from the world they live in.
And when you remark upon how this philosophy produces nothing besides sheltered intellectuals, they have little to respond with besides ivory tower arrogance, calling you, and not to mention the world majority, too stupid to understand the sophisticated philosophy they study.
But if philosophy cannot be understood by people, then it is bad philosophy, the whole point of philosophy is to produce understanding. So what they consider a success is in fact a dire failure. The perfect philosophy would be one which could be understood by every person in the world, and help them find more meaningful lives.
But if you look for such things in a modern philosophy class, then you will be disappointed.
In fact, if you read about Athens, the great city of philosophy, it was the home of eccentrics, vulgarities, madmen and scientists. You had records of kings debating with beggars, and people who would completely alter their lives by philosophy through personal hardships, restraints, disciplines and meditations.
And then look at the modern student, a hegemonic and obedient subject within a strict environment that encourages meekness, punishment, self-humiliation and meaningless taskwork.
In a real philosophy class you would probably have far more interesting things. For instance, one wonderful assignment would be to have the students starve for a week. No food of any kind. Another would be to have to live in the woods, or in a cave, or maybe burn yourself with a candle. To spend a month committing to and recovering from, a cocaine habit.
Do things that real philosophers did. You can’t find new ways of seeing the world in mundane conditions after all. If you want to do proper philosophy, then you must commit yourself to it. But instead we have weak scholars of philosophy, who value pathetic things like safety and human welfare beyond the pursuit of truth. These are not philosophers, these are the people philosophers make fun of.
This is why you will never find an original thought among academics, because not one of them live an original life. Most of history’s greatest thinkers were drunken criminals, who slept in gutters and killed eachother in duels. You can either find the profound, or resign yourself to the mundane, but you cannot have it both ways. This is what separates the Gramscis from the Bordigas. One was a rebellious political prisoner, the other was a fat man with a housing development scheme.
Rather, the bleak shadow of this great past are a bunch of glorified scribes and copiers, constantly producing circular notions to validate whatever benefactor that stuffs grant money down their trouser lines.
Real education is being kept alive by ordinary people, who attend libraries, read articles, study the things that interest them, and share that knowledge with others. The working class will never be recognised for this, but they are the true intellectuals of society.
