Jargon in Philosophy

Posted by Robert Sharp Apr 28, 2006

I noticed that even my articles on Ancient Philosophy contained jargon that many people unfamiliar with philosophy might find confusing. The problem is that jargon is a tool like any other. If used incorrectly, it causes problems that would not otherwise exist. However, if used correctly, it greatly simplifies the process at hand.

So what is the correct way to use jargon? First, do not overuse it. Many philosophers (especially grad students) use jargon as a way of obscuring their points. Jargon makes a claim sound much more impressive than it really is. For example, if I say "The argument qua Aristotle affirms the consequent," expert philosophers will know that I mean an argument regarding Aristotle makes a logical mistake. However, a person unfamiliar with philosophy will have no idea what I mean.

Even so, the statement (minus the 'qua,' which is just pretentious) is much more concise than if I were to fully explain the argument. Similarly, a question about whether a philosopher is a subjectivist or a relativist asks for a critical distinction, one that may seem subtle if you do not understand that subjectivism refers to a radical form of relativism in which individuals decide the truth. In this case, 'relativism' would refer to a more moderate form of relativism, most likely cultural relativism, in which different societies have different, legitimate values.

What I just wrote illustrates the other key to using jargon. If you are unsure whether your audience will know what certain terms mean, then define them. You only have to do it once, and then you can use those terms throughout the same piece of work without fear that your reader will not understand your point.

In proper moderation, jargon is a useful shortcut.