Long Texts and Complex Arguments

(Originally posted by me at the old version of ClawsOrPaws.)

I am often fascinated by the way online people expect contributions to discussions to be kept short, or else they can't be bothered to read them. Often these "can't be bored" people are the same ones that will spend hours learning the intricacies of a new piece of code or software, or the controls of a complex game. They realise that complexity will take time and effort, but only when that complexity is superficially obvious. To say that it may take similar time and effort to properly comprehend questions about society and human existence is sometimes even labelled "elitist". The implicit argument seems to be that since these are questions that concern us all, they should be framed in a format and language that is intelligible to all.

I think that is to disrespect us all. I am certainly not a friend of making things appear more difficult than they are by using difficult terminology and/or convoluted reasoning. But on the other hand, I think it is even worse to over-simplify difficult and complex questions.

I don't know if there are people who really have no capacity for understanding long texts that treat difficult philosophical problems. There may be. But I doubt they are as many as the simplification proponents would have us believe. What I do know is that it takes practice. Actually, I see very little difference between the way you have to keep exercising in order to be physically fit, and the way you have to keep reading (and discussing) complex arguments in order to keep up your intellectual stamina.

So, if you can't grasp a long and complex text at the first go, that doesn't mean that there is something wrong with long and complex texts. You wouldn't expect to be able to complete a long-distance running event without preparing for it, would you? Same thing applies here. It takes practice. You have to be willing to make the effort.

Simple as that!