On Philosophical Style

by Brand Blanshard

Originally given in 1953 as the Adamson Lecture at Manchester University, On Philosophical Style has become the classic presentation of the thesis that profundity and clarity are not opposed philosophical virtues but rather required companions. Blanshard begins with the Why is it that philosophers of great perception sometimes confess a failure to comprehend certain of their colleagues? He ends with the assertion "that the problem of style is not a problem of words and sentences merely, but of being the right kind of mine." In between, there is much offered, in fine style and short compass, for those who both write and read philosophy.

Genres: Philosophy, Writing, Nonfiction

68 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1967

Reviews

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

More Than Philosophical Style

Brand Blanshard (1892 --1987) was an American philosopher who taught at Yale for many years. During his lifetime, Blanshard was out of the philosophical mainstream and remains so. He was a rationalist with a commitment to the Absolute and to speculative metaphysics in a distinctly analytic, naturalistic age. I don't think Blanshard has received the attention he deserves.

With several lengthy philosophical works to his credit, Blanshard's most famous book is this 68 page booklet "On Philosophical Style" which originated as a lecture he gave in 1953 at Manchester University. A pleasure to read, "On Philosophical Style argues that philosophical writing does not have to be obscure or turgid to have depth and meaning. In the "Tractatus", Wittgenstein said that "whatever can be said, can be said clearly". Blanshard was not a follower of either the early or the late Wittgenstein, but this insight from early Wittgenstein might, in its own way, be a motto for Blanshard's book.

The book offers examples of jargon-filled, almost unreadable philosophical prose from usual suspects such as Kant and Hegel and from others. Although not offering any easy formulas for good writing, Blanshard praises short, direct sentences, use of the specific term more than the general, a limited use of subordinate qualifiers, simple English, and a rhythmical prose that might be read aloud. The book offers many insights and turns of phrase in its own right, with astute comments about Nietzsche, Santayana, and Berkeley, among others.

Although the book is about style in philosophical writing, Blanshard has a deeper purpose. In discussing the style appropriate to philosophy, as opposed, say, to a novel, Blanshard offers thoughts on what philosophy is. Blanshard says that philosophy "belongs to the literature of knowledge" but people demand of it "the literature of power". He describes philosophy as an intellectual enterprise which examines fundamental concepts and assumptions in an attempt to reach the truth. Philosophy shares some characteristics with the sciences but differs from them in the breadth of its concerns and in the importance of its questions to human life and value. Thus, unlike work in chemistry or particle physics, the non-specialist has an interest in the investigations of philosophers and a right to demand clarity in what passes for philosophy.

Blanshard's discussion mirrors his own rationalistic conception of philosophy and might not be accepted by most philosophers. Some philosophers would deny that philosophy tells us facts about nature on grounds that this work is exclusively within the province of the sciences. Similarly, some philosophers might challenge Blanshard's belief in the alleged impersonal, rational character of the philosophical search or his claim that it discovers the truth. Those holding to a different understanding of philosophy might have in part a different conception of good philosophical writing. Still, there is much for philosophers and students of all persuasions to learn from this book. I have sympathy with Blanshard's understanding of philosophy.

The book is full of allusions to many writers, philosophers and non-philosophers together with many sharp observations that are easy to pass over in the context of reading about philosophical style. For example, Blanshard advises the philosopher to be aware in his writing that he may be criticizing the deeply-held feelings of some readers: Blanshard writes, for example: "Even if he thinks that religion and morals are the political progeny that flattery begets upon pride, he will know that this is hardly the most persuasive way of putting his case."

In the last pages of the work, Blanshard considers the relationship between style and substance in philosophy. Some would emphasize style while others would find it of little importance. Blanshard finds a strong connection between thought and feeling and expression in writing that philosophers, and others who write, must work at improving with time. More importantly, he argues that their is a relationship between philosophical style on one had, and having a proper mind and being a good person on the other hand. Blanshard writes:

"The more perfectly one's style fits the inner man and reveals its strength and defect, the clearer it becomes that the problem of style is not a problem of words and sentences merely, but of being the right kind of mind. .... [I]t show also that the problem we have been discussing is no petty or merely technical one, but very far-reaching indeed. We may have to agree with Professor Raleigh that 'to write perfect prose is neither more nor less difficult than to lead a perfect life.'"

This is an excellent, rewarding book for readers interested in philosophy or writing. It makes me want to explore in greater detail Blanshard's longer philosophical books.

Robin Friedman

[Giorgos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Το βιβλιαράκι αυτό είναι η αποθέωση του ύφους –ενός ύφους που υποστηρίζει, ωστόσο, σοβαρό περιεχόμενο και στρέφεται εναντίον ενός ύφους που επικρατούσε όταν κυκλοφόρησε το 1954 στο ακαδημαϊκό αγγλοσαξωνικό φιλοσοφικό περιβάλλον –αλλά, υπό μιαν έννοια συνεχίζει να ανθεί εντός και εκτός της ακαδημαϊκής φιλοσοφίας, στον ευρύτερο χώρο της σκέψης. Αρκούντως πικρόχολο, αρκούντως to the point.

Κομψοτέχνημα λιβέλου, μείγμα υπόγειου σαρκασμού και λεπτού χιούμορ, σοβαρότατο και διόλου σοβαροφανές, γραμμένο τολμηρά από καθηγητή φιλοσοφίας που ξέρει από την καλή και από την ανάποδη τους συναδέλφους του και τα γραπτά τους. Κατηγορεί όλα αυτά που βρίσκουμε σε πάμπολλα βιβλία και στις μέρες μας, και τα επισημαίνει ο Φιλήμων Παιονίδης στον μεστό του πρόλογο: “μακροσκελείς προτάσεις, πλατειασμούς, περιττούς νεολογισμούς, συναισθηματικά ξεσπάσματα αντί για επιχειρήματα, ακραία επιτήδευση, λεξιλαγνία, μεγαλοστομία, σπουδαιοφάνεια, ατέρμονες γενικολογίες, απροθυμία παροχής εξηγήσεων και παραδειγμάτων, καθώς και μια κλίση προς την κατάχρηση ειδικών όρων”. Ε, αν κάποιος δεν τα έχει συναντήσει αυτά σε ‘φιλοσοφικά’ και άλλα βιβλία ανθρωπιστικών επιστημών, μάλλον δεν έχει διαβάσει ούτε ένα!

Ο Blanshard ανελέητα και ευφρόσυνα αποδομεί (χωρίς διόλου μετανεωτερικό αποδομητικό λεξιλόγιο) τις σύνθετες ακραίες γλωσσοπλασίες μεγάλων φιλοσόφων περιωπής ενός Καντ ή ενός Χέγκελ (let alone Heidegger, θα πρόσθετε ασμένως ο ίδιος). Τόσο απλά μας λέει ότι το ακατάληπτο ενός κειμένου δεν είναι ένδειξη της βαθύνοιας της συγγραφέα (ούτε, να προσθέσω, της βραδύνοιας του αναγνώστη). Δεν είναι ότι δεν καταλαβαίνει από ύφος και λογοτεχνία –κάθε άλλο. Δείχνει, όμως, ότι η γενικότητα και η λεξιθηρία του φιλοσοφικού λόγου μόνο αβαρία προκαλεί στο νόημά του και αναζητά παντού στη φιλοσοφία τη σαφήνεια, Κι αυτό θα έλεγε κανείς ότι είναι διανοητικό μας χρέος (μου θυμίζει εδώ, χωρίς όμως τον διδακτισμό του, τον προδρομικό Αυγουστίνο της Χριστιανικής διδασκαλίας). Και προχωρά, όπως ξέραμε από πολύ παλιά, στη σύνδεση του ύφους με το ήθος/χαρακτήρα. «Το ύφος είναι η ενσάρκωση του νου», μας λέει ο ιδεαλιστής Αμερικανός φιλόσοφος, αλλά για να τον εκφράσει χρειάζεται κόπος και εξάσκηση.

Στα ελληνικά έχουν γραφεί τα Ἀλαμπουρνέζικα του Ντίνου Χριστιανόπουλου, εν μέρει δίκαια εν μέρει υπερβολικά, πάντως απολαυστικά, για τον λόγο νεοελλήνων διανοουμένων (βλ. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...). Αλλά αυτό το βιβλιαράκι του Blanshard είναι κλάσεις ανώτερο, τολμηρό, υπέροχα και κεφάτα μεταφρασμένο από τον Παιονίδη. Αξίζει να διαβαστεί: από αυτούς που γράφουν και διδάσκουν φιλοσοφία (μη τυχόν και πολλοί από αυτούς αναρωτηθούν αν πήραν στραβά το τι αξίζει στο τεχνικό ή λογοτεχνικό ύφος τους) και όλοι που διαβάζουν φιλοσοφία και ανθρωπιστικές και κοινωνικές επιστήμες. Όλοι μας που πιστεύουμε (όχι στο κενό) ότι κι αν είναι δύσκολη η φιλοσοφία είναι στο χέρι μας να μην είναι ‘κινέζικα’. Ειδάλλως, «οι φιλόσοφοι και οι αναγνώστες τους είναι καταδικασμένοι να περιπλανώνται σε μια υφολογική έρημο τρεφόμενοι μόνο με κάκτους».

[Chant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally a philosopher that get it! If only Kant, Hegel, or Heidegger took this into account, we might have a better readership in analytic philosophy.

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am always amazed when I have read a book and then find out that I have read it before. In this case 40 years ago. So I am inclined to forgive myself for having forgotten about it.

It is memorable though. A delightful little book on style in general and the style of philosophers in particular. Subject without style he quotes Collingwood is barbarism and style without subject dilettantism.

He provides some excellent examples of bad style. I liked best a definition of some X. You could guess he says that it was Hegel but he was willing to bet the national debt that one could not guess what X was. And when you think about it, it is a pretty good test. You should at least be able to have an idea what the definiendum might be given the definition.

Blanshard himself is an excellent writer, although I certainly do not agree with his philosophy.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a neat little book describing and constructively criticizing the way philosophers write. The writing advice the author gives could help anyone in technical, academic subjects:

1) Write clearly
2) Write simply
3) Avoid large, unwieldy words
4) Be precise and concise
5) Use images or analogies to help the reader

[Imran Kazi · Rating 5 out of 5]

How I wish Hegel could listened to his suggestions.

[quattuor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Persistently obscure writers will usually be found to be defective human beings.

[Luke · Rating 5 out of 5]

memorable, lucid, and frankly relieving to know that people smarter than me also find kant unintelligible

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book includes many memorable quotations, including the best review of Nietzsche I have ever read:

"He is a boiling pot of enthusiasms and animosities, which he pours out volubly, skilfully, and eloquently. If he were content to label these outpourings 'Prejudices,' as Mr. Mencken so truly and candidly labels his own, one could accept them in the spirit in which they were offered; there is no more interesting reading than the aired prejudices of a brilliant writer. But he obviously takes them for something more and something better; he takes them as philosophy instead of what they largely are, pseudo-Isaian prophesyings, incoherent and unreasoned Sibylline oracles."

Other gems include:

"...a preoccupation with style may sterilize a philosopher or even an artist. When an artist becomes so 'abstract,' so lost in pure form, that he has nothing left to express, he finds himself in a vacuum, and the step is not a long one from inanity to insanity."

"Berkeley proved against all the Heideggers of the world that philosophy can be written clearly, against all the Hegels that it can be written simply, against all the Kants that it can be written with grace. He was no mere popularizer; he was an acute, original, and technical thinker, urging a theory that is about as shocking to common sense as any theory ever offered."

These quotations shouldn't give off the impression that Blanshard is making a philosophical attack against philosophers who are less gifted than he is at writing clearly. He states explicitly that an attack on a philosopher's style is not a substantive criticism, but he urges philosophers to be attentive to the virtues of clear expression in philosophical writing.

[Kenneth Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Books dealing with the topic of clear philosophical exposition are exceedingly rare, and yet the need for clearer exposition among many philosophers of note could hardly be more obvious. Moreover, so far as this reviewer is aware, there are no books concerning the topic written by a genuine master of philosophical exposition apart from this one.

This may go some way toward accounting for the surprising popularity of this book. On the other hand, it may have more to do with its brevity: Blanshard's few other books, though all remarkably readable masterpieces, are somewhat lengthy.

The reader who comes away from "OPS" convinced of its assorted theses will do well to turn to those works as exemplifications of the guidelines he furnishes here. In particular, "The Uses of a Liberal Education" provides numerous examples of sparkling, yet profoundly insightful, essays that show just how this sort of writing can be done.

Be aware, however, that clarity and insightfulness of writing demands an equivalent clarity and insightfulness of thought - and this is hard won.

One will go a long toward achieving just that sort of insight over the course of reading Blanshard's core oeuvre, which runs from "The Nature of Thought" through "Reason and Analysis", "Reason and Goodness", and "Reason and Belief". And these are capped off with his late masterpiece "Four Reasonable Men", the concentrated wisdom of which supplies an especially robust tonic for our especially troubled times.

[Marco den Ouden · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent little book on writing clearly on philosophy. It is written with eloquence and wit. And it has many examples of how not to write which are often hilarious.

This book, in my opinion, should be part of every introductory course in philosophy.

[CR · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent.

Remember to limit -tion use.

[Ahmad · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lucid analysis of features of bad philosophical writing style. they can be summed up in:
1. Very broad generalizations
2. No concrete examples
3. Vague, unedited structures
4. Vague abstractions
5. Emotionless language (a writer shouldn't eliminate ALL emotions, only irrelevant ones)
6. Long sentences
7. Adding too many qualifications and parenthetical clauses

The last few pages were insightful; they related the style to the author. To write good prose is to be a good person.