The more precise phrase is
What the hell are you talking about?!
As a theorist, philosopher, critical thinker, etc..have you ever gotten that response from someone you start talking to?
I appreciate the ‘hell’ part of it Because it shows a certain moxie, a certain interest in wanting to know. Like my previous post “wtf is going on?” (Or whatever it is titled). It shows a certain involvement with the discussion.
Actually, I find more often the response of just not engaging. I have the particular pleasure of having no friends off line who enjoy any type of involvement with thinking. And the ones who think they do, once they get a glimpse of just how deep that rabbit hole is, usually back off. (Sorry friends)
But I’m really talking more about the theorists themselves, the ones who actually do think themselves into oblivion. Usually a polite response is “what do you mean?”. And then the not so polite response is to argue back, discredit, and then personally insult, or fall back to their own credentials, (that they are not required to engage) often in that order.
I think these two types of responses are just part of the game and often enough really don’t encounter the subject of the discussion. The point of most work in critical thinking is to not have to justify what you are talking about (that’s the point of getting a degree!).
Perhaps this coincides with the incredulity some employed thinkers encounter of themselves, a kind of detached view of themselves, themesleves a sort of metanarrative they are not believing.
Maybe that’s Because we are too already involved in our work. Maybe we have lost an ability to see what we are doing because we have gotten so caught up in the doing of “valued work”.
So, instead of just going along with the theoretical train of adding more definitions and citing references which beg the question of what my work is about, lately I like to enter the discussion (after getting a layout, of course; not just being rude) with
What the Hell are you talking about?!
And I mean pretty much , Hey. Can we clear the theoretical board again and really get back to what the hell we are talking about ???
What specifically is the arrangement of jargon addressing ?