Why is it that when we can't understand a book, we assume the problem is with us? Why do we treat hard-to-read as being must-be-clever? Well, in 1999, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum answered these questions as part of a major takedown against Judith Butler. Nussbaum argued that philosophy is a discourse of equals, where we swap arguments out in the open. It's a clean fight where blows and tactics are visible. And Nussbaum argues that there are two problems with anybody who tries to use confusing language as a kind of sophistry. The first problem is that obscurity creates an aura of importance, and it bullies the reader into assuming that if they can't follow something, something deep must be going on, and they, the reader, need to work to find it. But when a writer rattles off a lot of names alongside mountains of jargon, while offering few explanations or real-life examples, they are trying to hammer the reader into docility: it's your fault for not understanding. The second problem is that inaccessible, complicated and needlessly convoluted language isn't a debate between equals. Because if you can't pin down what somebody is trying to say, you cannot challenge them or test their claims. Butler's defence was to say that ordinary, clear language is polluted by the restraints of the world as it already is. If we are to be original or break the traditions holding us back, we need to break even with the language that people commonly use. So are you Team Nussbaum or Butler? Do you think that needlessly complicated language is a kind of bullying? Or do you think we need to go beyond the narrow mainstream parameters of everyday language? — TikTok de @philosophyminis