Comments on: John Holbo on bad writing

By: bluish

bluish — Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:27:30 +0000

sennoma – my guess is that seth was ‘salting the stew’ – don’t lose focus over the statement.

By: sennoma

sennoma — Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:53:59 +0000

the hard sciences as such are … peopled most often by moral idiots Ouch, dude. I don’t think scientists are any less (or more) morally competent than most groups of people. In fact, I’d venture to say that scientists as a group are rather better acquainted with ethical thinking than most, as a result of having to deal with the ramifications of their own work. Not that more ethical thinking in science wouldn’t be a good thing—but I think the best way to bring that about is to increase public awareness of and involvement in research, and that’s a different discussion—but jeez, “moral idiots”? That’s harsh. (Obdisclosure: I’m a molecular biologist by trade. I hope I’m not a moral idiot.)

By: Bluish

Bluish — Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:50:11 +0000

S.E.: Yes P.S. Let me chew a little and get back to you. I’m a hard science technician, not a philosopher, but I wandered into the strange forest by accident when I realized the Democratic political Party no longer represented my views, my interests, or my concerns as an American, as a wage earner (an unfortunate pinko term and I am open to alternative nomenclature), as a person who values independence, or as a citizen of the world. From my research, I learned that the ’progressive left’ co-opted the Democratic Party for a night of fun and games in the barn and when the party was over, Democrats woke up with little but ideological straw in their britches/bloomers. Which is to say the intellectuals in America attempted to implement the identity politics of Foucault and other French ’post-modern’ thinkers into the political cause of activism but when the snake circled upon itself, identity politics was premised on differences that could not be logically consolidated into a single cohesive political force. And no, they did not respect the Democrats in the morning. Instead they retreated into the politics of rhetoric, which is intentionally divorced from the ‘bricks and mortar’ of everyday reality – and they had the nerve to cry ‘anti-intellectualism!’. So Democrats are left with a less than appealing rap beat of ‘Bush-Cheney-Bad’ as nothing but a sad/poignant symbol of their one night of love that ended in lost opportunity and, in a sense, the German word, weltschmerz, a nostalgia for something that never was. In my opinion, French philosophy never played well in an American context, but I’m a numbers person. Let me chew some more and get back to you.

By: s.e.

s.e. — Mon, 01 Dec 2003 06:16:52 +0000

Blu, are you referring to critical theory, which is a sort of anti-bourgeois/ bourgeois formalism: nihilism as impotence (with all the reactionary Sadean implications, but with some moral complexity), or to analytic philosophy, which is a sort of technocratic formalism: nihilism as pure mechanism, and as mechanism, therefore, somehow moral? [don’t ask me how that works, that’s why I said ‘somehow’] Neither is left wing. But both Chomsky and Sokal are positivists. Chomsky describes himself as a follower of the philosophy of Jesus Christ (as opposed to the religion of his followers) but that doesn’t help much. He, almost literally, refuses to understand immorality. His idealism is useless in a political context, though he is a brilliant recorder and reporter of facts I’m not opposed to activism at all. The point is to be both activist and skeptic. That’s contradictory perhaps, but I don’t see how to avoid it, and it doesn’t bother me.

By: Bluish

Bluish — Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:43:40 +0000

It just seems odd (suspicious?) that Left thought has moved from the goal obsessed utopianism of the last century to an almost nihilistic vision of rhetoric completely divorced from action. Is this some sort of admission of defeat? Mankind is not perfectible but he can be described in great detail? I am reminded of a mathematical analogy. A being in a 2-dimensional world considers the concept of volume, which can only exist in a 3-D world. No amount of thinking about volume will make it relevant to a 2-D world, but heck, it beats walking that damn line all day.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:31:28 +0000

ophelia benson: OK, so I guess the answer is yes—you would prefer that I call it “discourse” rather than “chatter.” Consider it done. Substitute the former for the latter in my above remarks. Anything else bugging you? Sheesh. What a…uh…but I forbear to complete that sentence, lest the enemy blaspheme.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:13:34 +0000

Nice try – but ‘chattering’ is a pejorative. Chattering classes, remember? That’s not a compliment, any more than, say, ‘limousine liberal’ is. And – shrug – anybody can ‘engage’ with the most serious etc etc, but what of that? That doesn’t entail being any good at it. And Martha Nussbaum’s criticism of Butler, for example, is that that’s precisely what she doesn’t do. So – shrug – we seem to be inhabiting different universes here.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:45:22 +0000

Ophelia Benson: What do you have against chattering? I have nothing against it at all. I can chatter with the best of them, and sometimes do. Sometimes it is even a “serious endeavor.” But I see no need to get all solemn about it. And to suggest that acts of interpretation and representation (i.e., chatter, for short—or would you prefer that I call it “discourse?”) are the only serious sorts of endeavor is false to the point of silliness.

By: s e.

s e. — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:38:01 +0000

It’s a beautiful day. What the hell am I doing indoors when I could be out watching a movie? I’ll put it simply, and perhaps a little cruelly; but the illustration is funny, and involves large amounts of water (I just got out of the bathtub, that’s where I thought it up.) The theorists, Judith Butler et al. are without a doubt in the deep end of the pool. I think, that is, that they’re trying to engage with the most important philosophical issues we face, as I tried to define them above. The problem is, they’re drowning; and their opponents are standing in the shallow end, in water up to their ankles(?) knees(?) doubled up with laughter. I just don’t think all things considered, that the laughter is justified, not before the people who are so amused swim out into deeper water and see how they do in it themselves.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:34:28 +0000

Sure, law courts are theaters. That’s exactly why (well, one reason) I said they’re not the only place people look for truth – or facts either, though I didn’t say that. Not all truth-seekers are engaged primarily or even at all in performance. Lawyers in court have to convince someone; researchers don’t always have to do that, and even if they do they often have to do it in fields where pure performance or rhetoric or charm or charisma or personality or a pretty face won’t do the job, they have to present evidence. (And in fact evidence tends to be of some use even in a court of law.) Or have I misunderstood your point?

By: Seth Edenbaum

Seth Edenbaum — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:54:29 +0000

I've always wanted to do what I'm about to do in this context without shutting down the conversation and coming off as a total ass, so thank you Ophelia for giving me the opportunity. Hey Vin, I hang sheetrock for a living; You need new cabinets?. You need your house painted? Drop me a line. My family background is academic, other than that my credentials are nonexistent. I am very aware that I know a lot less than most people here, but my interest is in clarity, not for its own sake, but where it can be said to describe the world. If I slip badly I'm sure someone will let me know. Isn't there a logic to scientific problem solving that defines the right answers as being the ones that combine the simple with the efficacious? Is that combination not defined as beautiful? Clarity without reference to the world, even the world of language, has no meaning to me (that's meaning with a small 'm'.) As far as philosophy is concerned, literature and theatre are viable not only as subjects but as projects. Legal debate in a courtroom is merely an intellectual slugfest with rules. logic as such plays a part, but only a part. It's theater. Jack Balkin of Yale and Balkinization has a series of articles on law as performance. (scroll down. he's also publish articles on law and deconstruction) That is the root of my sympathy for theorists, however touched it is, often, by pity and impatience. I went to art school. I'm from the last generation of art school graduates who learned a trade rather than computer skills. [that explains something] Beauty is important to me. But I can define it only in its relation to it's power to describe something outside itself. Otherwise, like logic, it can become brittle. Great art, like the legal process -when it is a process- like interesting philosophy, is a 'dynamic structure,' combining flexibility with 'bodily' integrity. In the present state of affairs does logical analysis fit the definition of a dynamic structure? I'm not sure it does.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:31:02 +0000

“actually doing things as opposed to chattering?” Oh, Gawd. Not that again. Thinking is a good thing, not a bad one. Calling it ‘chattering’ is sheer anti-intellectualism. Just for one thing, neither gardening nor curing the sick would get very far if a lot of people hadn’t done a lot of ‘chattering’ over the years to improve both endeavors. Yes yes yes, I realize that the interpretation of literary texts (for one example) is not as obviously useful or productive as agronomy or medicine. But thinking in general has all sorts of ‘uses,’ some more obvious than others. It’s also just plain a good thing, an enhancement of human life. I do wish intellectuals could learn to stop fouling their own nests.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:00:35 +0000

seth edenbaum writes: “Outside of mathematical sciences what else is there” [besides acts of interpretation and representation]? Well, uh, curing the sick? planting one’s garden? actually doing things as opposed to chattering? But no doubt someone will rush in to tell me that even helping an old lady across the street is a way of “look[ing] at the world through a lens. Whatever.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:48:51 +0000

“I’ve always wanted to ask Steven Weinberg why he became a scientist. The answer would be most likely because of a certain kind of desire for a certain kind of truth. But truth is a metaphysical construct with a whole lot of poetical baggage. In court they don’t talk about ‘truth’ but about ‘facts’ which are much more mundane. No one spouts of about The Eternal Search for FACTS! do they?” Ooh, thanks, that’s one for Quotations. (Law courts aren’t the only place one looks for epistemological practice, in fact law courts operate under various contraints that make them really not very good places to look for that. And believe it or not it is possible to use the words ‘truth’ and ‘true’ without using the words ‘eternal’ or ‘transcendent.’ As a matter of fact people do it all the time. Even lawyers and judges.)

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:44:19 +0000

‘Unless, of course, acts of interpretation and representation are the only serious endeavors’ Why is it crazy? I’m a little surprised. Outside of mathematical sciences what else is there? And then by what process by which we decide what projects get funded? ‘I need money to study plankton’ ‘But it’s more important for me to study the sun’ ‘Me first’ ‘No… Me!’ If you want to remove philosophy from the humanities by all means, go ahead, rational actor theory and all that. The only problem is it fails in it’s job of explaining our behavior. It’s shallow and it’s silly. An artist may choose to develop his or her perceptions, may choose even to indulge in misperceptions. A craftsman may master a trade. But I don’t see how it is possible for someone to escape bias of one sort or another. So yes, even for a scientist I would say the most important thing is to be able to be a humanist within the context of the ~~what am I going to call it?~~ the ‘ahumanist,’ asocial, and amoral sciences. As far as Marx is concerned I think he was commenting on Rousseau, but I don’t want to get too far into this since I don’t want to sound more bookish than I am; I just have a good memory of what little I’ve read. But since I am neither a liberal nor an individualist by ideology, and am more concerned with obligation than with freedom, I think I can make the reference without worrying too much. ps I’ve always wanted to ask Steven Weinberg why he became a scientist. The answer would be most likely because of a certain kind of desire for a certain kind of truth. But truth is a metaphysical construct with a whole lot of poetical baggage. In court they don’t talk about ‘truth’ but about ‘facts’ which are much more mundane. No one spouts of about The Eternal Search for FACTS! do they?