> Though I mostly agree with Yoshie on this point, there is still something
> off-putting about the deliberately bad writing of many academic texts. It is
> important to distinguish a technical vocabulary, as of Marxism,
> psychoanalysis,
> or whatever, from obscurity. A technical vocabulary exists to express thoughts
> for which there are no other precise words. Obscurantism has no legitimate
> purpose.
A good distinction, but where does technical vocabulary end and obscurantism begin? The technical vocabulary of Kant, Hegel Heidegger is obscure but not obscurantism. Why are contemporary left academicians criticized more harshly than the difficult writers they are commenting on?
Jacob Segal