Comments on: Philosophers http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:14:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185894 Matt Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:07:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185894 "You follow me now?" No. "I've failed." Yes. “You follow me now?”

No.

“I’ve failed.”

Yes.

]]> By: marcus stanley http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185937 marcus stanley Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:51:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185937 If you think being interested in "abstraction as a way of avoiding the world" is particularly academic, then you don't understand American life very well. You need more experience with white-collar office work, which is what most Americans do. You might also want to watch more TV. I don't think true expertise is really that influential in the U.S. Witness how few participants in the public Iraq debate even spoke Arabic, or in the current Iran discussions speak Persian. That's a pretty minimal standard of expertise. I'm all in favor of wisdom. That philosophy is no longer connected to the wisdom tradition should not be taken as a compliment to philosophy. But there's no point holding it up to criticism because of that, it's chosen another direction. I'm not sure there ever was a golden age when professors were wise. If you think being interested in “abstraction as a way of avoiding the world” is particularly academic, then you don’t understand American life very well. You need more experience with white-collar office work, which is what most Americans do. You might also want to watch more TV.

I don’t think true expertise is really that influential in the U.S. Witness how few participants in the public Iraq debate even spoke Arabic, or in the current Iran discussions speak Persian. That’s a pretty minimal standard of expertise.

I’m all in favor of wisdom. That philosophy is no longer connected to the wisdom tradition should not be taken as a compliment to philosophy. But there’s no point holding it up to criticism because of that, it’s chosen another direction. I’m not sure there ever was a golden age when professors were wise.

]]> By: Seth Edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185892 Seth Edenbaum Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:32:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185892 What does it mean that "nerds" now run humanities departments? What and why is a literature geek? And how and why did people, so unwilling or unable to situate themselves socially or historically as products of linguistic and cultural community take over departments dedicated to the study of language, culture and community? Nerds separate intelligence from perception, from the body. Nerds fear history and context. The hate instability. It makes them nervous. Posner is a nerd. Everything I've read here over the last few years; the language the tone, the arguments, are specific to the culture and times that produced them.<blockquote>"Professor Franco Moretti argues heretically that literature scholars should stop reading books and start counting, graphing, and mapping them instead. He insists that such a move could bring new luster to a tired field, one that in some respects is among “the most backwards disciplines in the academy.”</blockquote> What's the difference between and expert and a connoisseur? A connoisseur pays attention to his tastes, his surroundings his responses to them and those of others An expert doesn't think he has tastes and thinks his surroundings don't matter. He thinks he's interested in the outside world. Americans are experts. They neither know nor care how others perceive them. You follow me now? I've spent the last few years arguing with experts trying to explain that expertise is not enough. I've failed. What does it mean that “nerds” now run humanities departments?
What and why is a literature geek? And how and why did people, so unwilling or unable to situate themselves socially or historically as products of linguistic and cultural community take over departments dedicated to the study of language, culture and community?
Nerds separate intelligence from perception, from the body. Nerds fear history and context. The hate instability. It makes them nervous. Posner is a nerd.
Everything I’ve read here over the last few years; the language the tone, the arguments, are specific to the culture and times that produced them.
“Professor Franco Moretti argues heretically that literature scholars should stop reading books and start counting, graphing, and mapping them instead. He insists that such a move could bring new luster to a tired field, one that in some respects is among “the most backwards disciplines in the academy.”
What’s the difference between and expert and a connoisseur? A connoisseur pays attention to his tastes, his surroundings his responses to them and those of others An expert doesn’t think he has tastes and thinks his surroundings don’t matter. He thinks he’s interested in the outside world. Americans are experts. They neither know nor care how others perceive them. You follow me now?
I’ve spent the last few years arguing with experts trying to explain that expertise is not enough. I’ve failed.

]]> By: john c. halasz http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185881 john c. halasz Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:28:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185881 Hey, Seth. For once, I almost enjoyed some of your declamations. Yummie! Those bits about "the history of perception" and "conceptual rationalism" were right on! Though I must admit I've never read Pynchon, Eastwood, or Lucas, except for the late nite T.V. Leone epics. Er, no, you needn't bother. I've already cheneyed myself just fine... Hey, Seth. For once, I almost enjoyed some of your declamations. Yummie! Those bits about “the history of perception” and “conceptual rationalism” were right on! Though I must admit I’ve never read Pynchon, Eastwood, or Lucas, except for the late nite T.V. Leone epics.

Er, no, you needn’t bother. I’ve already cheneyed myself just fine…

]]> By: Seth Edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185873 Seth Edenbaum Sun, 04 Feb 2007 05:18:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185873 go fuck youself go fuck youself

]]> By: Matt http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185871 Matt Sun, 04 Feb 2007 04:28:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185871 Seth! Please, take a deep breath. Or two. Use the term how you want- we won't really care that much, but I worry that you're getting a bit worked up. Seth! Please, take a deep breath. Or two. Use the term how you want- we won’t really care that much, but I worry that you’re getting a bit worked up.

]]> By: Seth Edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185867 Seth Edenbaum Sun, 04 Feb 2007 03:48:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185867 "Painter" is a descriptive term, like "writer" or "filmaker." I've always been envious of filmakers since they don't get called "artists" until people decide they are good enough to warrant the term. All painters get called artists these days and that's done no one any good. My father was an "english teacher." He published a few things, one or two well known, but he did not refer to himself as a "literary critic." He never had "a project" or let anything other than his students take priority. He was not a genius and did not <i>pretend to have an original mind</i> though it could be argued that in some ways he had one. An unimaginative chemist may do research that has value, a "philosopher" with a mediocre mind should stick to teaching philosophy. But the logic of hypertrophied individualism and the need to compete with the hard sciences has created a culture of literary conceptiualism and pseudoscience that in the form of "tenured radicals" gives cafe revolutionaries like me a bad name. "Yummies" Young Upwardly Mobile Marxists as an old family friend named them. I doesn't matter if it's literary theory, chicago school economics or linguistic analysis, it's the same fucking thing: rationalist conceptualism, of by and for the academy and meaningless outside it. The humanities are a function of the social. They are linked to the world through the study of the history of <i>perception</i>. We are made by language and by culture and are not independent of it. It used to be that there was a reciprocal relation between those who followed their sensibilities, and those who came by afterwords to find out what honesty had made that intellect could not. That reciprocal relation still exists, but not in the academy (and not nearly enough in the ghetto of the art world) In the world at large all is if not well still much much better. By and large it's still assumed by people who are bright enough to think about such things that Eastwood is better than George Lucas [and these days better than Scorsese!] Pynchon is better than Tolkien and that Ayn Rand simply sucks. In the academy however all bets are off. Libertarianism is little more than a cult in the outside world, has a place of importance in academic culture. And rationalism (about everything) reigns. Rationalism predicated on what now? On what? ON WHAT? These days every idiot with a PhD wants to be an intellectual. Talk amongst yourselves. “Painter” is a descriptive term, like “writer” or “filmaker.” I’ve always been envious of filmakers since they don’t get called “artists” until people decide they are good enough to warrant the term. All painters get called artists these days and that’s done no one any good. My father was an “english teacher.” He published a few things, one or two well known, but he did not refer to himself as a “literary critic.” He never had “a project” or let anything other than his students take priority. He was not a genius and did not pretend to have an original mind though it could be argued that in some ways he had one. An unimaginative chemist may do research that has value, a “philosopher” with a mediocre mind should stick to teaching philosophy. But the logic of hypertrophied individualism and the need to compete with the hard sciences has created a culture of literary conceptiualism and pseudoscience that in the form of “tenured radicals” gives cafe revolutionaries like me a bad name. “Yummies” Young Upwardly Mobile Marxists as an old family friend named them. I doesn’t matter if it’s literary theory, chicago school economics or linguistic analysis, it’s the same fucking thing: rationalist conceptualism, of by and for the academy and meaningless outside it.

The humanities are a function of the social. They are linked to the world through the study of the history of perception. We are made by language and by culture and are not independent of it. It used to be that there was a reciprocal relation between those who followed their sensibilities, and those who came by afterwords to find out what honesty had made that intellect could not. That reciprocal relation still exists, but not in the academy (and not nearly enough in the ghetto of the art world) In the world at large all is if not well still much much better. By and large it’s still assumed by people who are bright enough to think about such things that Eastwood is better than George Lucas [and these days better than Scorsese!] Pynchon is better than Tolkien and that Ayn Rand simply sucks. In the academy however all bets are off. Libertarianism is little more than a cult in the outside world, has a place of importance in academic culture. And rationalism (about everything) reigns. Rationalism predicated on what now? On what? ON WHAT?
These days every idiot with a PhD wants to be an intellectual.
Talk amongst yourselves.

]]> By: harry b http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185843 harry b Sat, 03 Feb 2007 23:07:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185843 I grant completely that you are no more likely to find wisdom in a philosophy department than most other places, and less likely than in many other places (in my experience anayway). And you're welcome to restrict your use of the term to that. But the use to which you object has a very very long history indeed; certainly at least 400 years, and Philosophy has existed as a discipline for all that time (its boundaries have changed, to be sure -- as one of my teachers pointed out, whenever people got good at some field of philosophy they seceded and created a new discipline with a new name like Physics or Biology). One that, I agree, has little to do with wisdom. Its just a designation. A shorthand if you like (after I wrote the above I tried to remember when I last called myself a philosopher, and I realised that I have only done so when I was in a department which included sociolocists economists and historians, so "philosopher" was the most convenient way of distinguishing what I did). I've no objection at all to you refraining from calling people who do philosophy as a profession "philosophers", as long as you don't call us psychologists (nothing against psychologists, but they do someting different). If your anecdote was an attack on teacher ed programs.... I agree that restricting women to teaching is a much more efficient way of getting bright and good teachers that making people take teacher ed. degrees. Me, I'd abolish the requirement that teachers have ed certs tomorrow, if I could. And, although I'm with you on what I take to be your objection to the consultants who suck money out of public education, I place as much blame on administrators at all levels on whose judgment that money is spent. Ok, so now I looked at your page. Are you a painter? Or do you just paint? I grant completely that you are no more likely to find wisdom in a philosophy department than most other places, and less likely than in many other places (in my experience anayway). And you’re welcome to restrict your use of the term to that. But the use to which you object has a very very long history indeed; certainly at least 400 years, and Philosophy has existed as a discipline for all that time (its boundaries have changed, to be sure—as one of my teachers pointed out, whenever people got good at some field of philosophy they seceded and created a new discipline with a new name like Physics or Biology). One that, I agree, has little to do with wisdom. Its just a designation. A shorthand if you like (after I wrote the above I tried to remember when I last called myself a philosopher, and I realised that I have only done so when I was in a department which included sociolocists economists and historians, so “philosopher” was the most convenient way of distinguishing what I did). I’ve no objection at all to you refraining from calling people who do philosophy as a profession “philosophers”, as long as you don’t call us psychologists (nothing against psychologists, but they do someting different).

If your anecdote was an attack on teacher ed programs…. I agree that restricting women to teaching is a much more efficient way of getting bright and good teachers that making people take teacher ed. degrees. Me, I’d abolish the requirement that teachers have ed certs tomorrow, if I could. And, although I’m with you on what I take to be your objection to the consultants who suck money out of public education, I place as much blame on administrators at all levels on whose judgment that money is spent.

Ok, so now I looked at your page. Are you a painter? Or do you just paint?

]]> By: Seth Edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185832 Seth Edenbaum Sat, 03 Feb 2007 21:21:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185832 Reading your bio page and remembering what I've read in the past we may have interests in common, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to designate yourself a philosopher, or that in doing so you're not alligning yourself with those who consider philosophy a matter of technical "expertise." So you'll excuse me if I continue to refer to Martha Nussbaum as a professor of philosophy. As far as the philosophy of education is concerned I'll add this: As a friend of mine noted, he and I had the benefit of being taught while young by women of the generation just before feminism, who were directed at the one job available to them. The intelligence of these frustrated women is not matched by the teachers available now. And this is said sadly by a man whose wife recently graduated one of the most prestigious education programs in the country, where she quickly became a star and will soon be on her way to a six figure income as one of the consultants who suck money out of public education in this country. She's teaching now, but her husband gives her 4 years before she gets bored. And her mentor, who calls her "a genius" wants her on the team. She's an expert, but not much of a philosopher. And my friend raises the kids pretty much alone. I'm sick of "knowledge nerds" Gimme wisdom. Reading your bio page and remembering what I’ve read in the past we may have interests in common, but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense to designate yourself a philosopher, or that in doing so you’re not alligning yourself with those who consider philosophy a matter of technical “expertise.” So you’ll excuse me if I continue to refer to Martha Nussbaum as a professor of philosophy.
As far as the philosophy of education is concerned I’ll add this:
As a friend of mine noted, he and I had the benefit of being taught while young by women of the generation just before feminism, who were directed at the one job available to them. The intelligence of these frustrated women is not matched by the teachers available now. And this is said sadly by a man whose wife recently graduated one of the most prestigious education programs in the country, where she quickly became a star and will soon be on her way to a six figure income as one of the consultants who suck money out of public education in this country. She’s teaching now, but her husband gives her 4 years before she gets bored. And her mentor, who calls her “a genius” wants her on the team. She’s an expert, but not much of a philosopher. And my friend raises the kids pretty much alone.

I’m sick of “knowledge nerds” Gimme wisdom.

]]> By: harry b http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185825 harry b Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:18:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185825 Good to have that cleared up seth. I'll be sure to defer to your superior sense of everything when I next try to think about anything. Good to have that cleared up seth. I’ll be sure to defer to your superior sense of everything when I next try to think about anything.

]]> By: Seth Edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185823 Seth Edenbaum Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:39:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185823 What does it say about the state of contemporary philosophy that the term Philosopher has been so degraded? What does it say that every PhD must now presumed to have an original mind? What does it say that nerdishness [nerdism? nerdiness?] once only seen in technological and scientific fields, should have spread the the humanities? What does it mean to have an intelligence with no sense of history or it's place in it? What I have harry, is a much wider sense of what academic philosophy is than most of its practitioners, just as I have a much wider sense of what America represents to the world than most Americans, as I have a wider sense of what Israel represents than most Israelis and just as I have a wider sense of transportation policy than most auto mechanics. What I have is <i>perspective</i>. What does it say about the state of contemporary philosophy that the term Philosopher has been so degraded? What does it say that every PhD must now presumed to have an original mind? What does it say that nerdishness [nerdism? nerdiness?] once only seen in technological and scientific fields, should have spread the the humanities? What does it mean to have an intelligence with no sense of history or it’s place in it?

What I have harry, is a much wider sense of what academic philosophy is than most of its practitioners, just as I have a much wider sense of what America represents to the world than most Americans, as I have a wider sense of what Israel represents than most Israelis and just as I have a wider sense of transportation policy than most auto mechanics.
What I have is perspective.

]]> By: harry b http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185806 harry b Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:00:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185806 I'm a philosopher because I do philosophy. Philosophy is an activity, and I do it professionally. Most people do, in fact, do it, but its not their job so they don't call themselves philosophers. If writing poetry were my job I'd call myself a poet. I'm not an especially good philosopher, just an ok one, by the standards of the profession, let alone by the standards of the great philosophers. The reason literary critics don't get called poets or novelists is because they don't write poetry or novels. I don't really see your problem, seth. We all knoe that Hume and Kant were great philosophers, and David Lewis was a really good one, just as Shakespeare and Eliot were great poets and Seamus Heaney a really good one. It is a pretty well-defined activity, probably as well defined as poetry. I don't usually claim to be a philosopher except in academia. If a non-academic asks what my jopb is I say I work at a university, and, if pressed, ina philosophy department, as a teacher. Not because I don't think I ama philosopher, but because I am definitely not what most people think a philosopher is. Hartry had a good joke about this when I was in grad school. A woman next to him on a long bus journey asked him what he did, so he said he was a philosopher. "Oh, would I have heard of any of your sayings?" was the reply. Btw, seth, you seem to have a much narrower view of what academic philosophy is than most of its practitioners do. I’m a philosopher because I do philosophy. Philosophy is an activity, and I do it professionally. Most people do, in fact, do it, but its not their job so they don’t call themselves philosophers. If writing poetry were my job I’d call myself a poet. I’m not an especially good philosopher, just an ok one, by the standards of the profession, let alone by the standards of the great philosophers. The reason literary critics don’t get called poets or novelists is because they don’t write poetry or novels. I don’t really see your problem, seth. We all knoe that Hume and Kant were great philosophers, and David Lewis was a really good one, just as Shakespeare and Eliot were great poets and Seamus Heaney a really good one. It is a pretty well-defined activity, probably as well defined as poetry.

I don’t usually claim to be a philosopher except in academia. If a non-academic asks what my jopb is I say I work at a university, and, if pressed, ina philosophy department, as a teacher. Not because I don’t think I ama philosopher, but because I am definitely not what most people think a philosopher is.

Hartry had a good joke about this when I was in grad school. A woman next to him on a long bus journey asked him what he did, so he said he was a philosopher. “Oh, would I have heard of any of your sayings?” was the reply.

Btw, seth, you seem to have a much narrower view of what academic philosophy is than most of its practitioners do.

]]> By: john c. halasz http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185783 john c. halasz Sat, 03 Feb 2007 05:03:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185783 Philosophy is "about" how to live a mortal life. It has nothing to do with any imaginary and impossible certification of Knowledge,- ( natural scientists don't need stage directions from philosphers, thank you very much),- nor with the attainment of any Final Truth about Ultimate Reality, which identification is not only a half-assed misrecognition of any possible stakes, but obtusely reductive with respect to any potentials that might exceed the pre-given. Philosophy is “about” how to live a mortal life. It has nothing to do with any imaginary and impossible certification of Knowledge,- ( natural scientists don’t need stage directions from philosphers, thank you very much),- nor with the attainment of any Final Truth about Ultimate Reality, which identification is not only a half-assed misrecognition of any possible stakes, but obtusely reductive with respect to any potentials that might exceed the pre-given.

]]> By: Seth Edenbaum http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185779 Seth Edenbaum Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:02:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185779 Everybody has a philosophy of life, because everybody orders their life as a pattern. Having your conscious thought being at all related to that pattern other than as its opposite is a mark of (rare) adulthood. Not bothering to imagine that there might be a disjunction is the mark of modern academia, left and right, and Leiter and Posner both go out of there way to mock the "wisdom angle" [it's like "the vision thing"] and the rule of law. Neither think it possible that their utilitarian individualism is as much symptom as thought, and consequently wouldn't make a half-life of a week outside the ghetto of academic rationalism. In the real world like Leiter's "leftist" poltics, it goes nowhere. Does "Law and Economics" describe the world? Does it do justice to the complexity of human thought? No. Then why continue? Does academic philosophy do a better job? It doesn't even try. It's not interested in the world, it's interested in abstraction as a way of avoiding the world. It likes things simple. Yes you made a joke, but it wasn't a joke <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/02/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-overlords/" rel="nofollow">this</a> is a joke. welcome to academia. Everybody has a philosophy of life, because everybody orders their life as a pattern. Having your conscious thought being at all related to that pattern other than as its opposite is a mark of (rare) adulthood. Not bothering to imagine that there might be a disjunction is the mark of modern academia, left and right, and Leiter and Posner both go out of there way to mock the “wisdom angle” [it’s like “the vision thing”] and the rule of law. Neither think it possible that their utilitarian individualism is as much symptom as thought, and consequently wouldn’t make a half-life of a week outside the ghetto of academic rationalism. In the real world like Leiter’s “leftist” poltics, it goes nowhere. Does “Law and Economics” describe the world? Does it do justice to the complexity of human thought? No. Then why continue? Does academic philosophy do a better job? It doesn’t even try. It’s not interested in the world, it’s interested in abstraction as a way of avoiding the world. It likes things simple.
Yes you made a joke, but it wasn’t a joke this is a joke.
welcome to academia.

]]> By: marcus stanley http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/comment-page-1/#comment-185772 marcus stanley Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:52:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/31/philosophers/#comment-185772 Ummm, Seth, it was a joke. About the many meanings of the word "philosophy". It's practically an invitation to pomposity. I've had a couple of philosophy professors tell me that long speeches about "my philosophy of life" are an occupational hazard of identifying yourself to others as a "philosopher". Apparently too subtle a joke for some. Ummm, Seth, it was a joke. About the many meanings of the word “philosophy”. It’s practically an invitation to pomposity. I’ve had a couple of philosophy professors tell me that long speeches about “my philosophy of life” are an occupational hazard of identifying yourself to others as a “philosopher”.

Apparently too subtle a joke for some.

]]>