Comments on: Beyond the area of his expertise

By: Hattie

Hattie — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:36:02 +0000

Oh for Pete sake. How conceited people are about their little accomplishments these days. Face it. We’ll all be worm bait in a few years anyhow. Especially me.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:47:47 +0000

I take it back I take it back!
Now that I read the thing, thanks to DD, it’s funny. He contradicts himself,he “gives the game away” and his attitude can be boiled down to “I’m always right, and even when I’m wrong I’m right!”
He’s not hiding behind anything: his subjectivism, if not outright irrationalism, is front and center. There’s honesty in that, even or especially if as seems to be the case he “believes” everything he says. Just like Camille Paglia but better. There’s no technocratic false neutrality. I’ll happily defend him, just like I defend TS Eliot and Philip Larkin.

Maybe they’ll give him a job in Paris.

By: se

se — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:08:21 +0000

I party all the time dude.

By: qb

qb — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:27:35 +0000

seth also remains committed to not having any fun.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:11:35 +0000

A better description than “offhand foolishness” would be “par for the course” or maybe “symptomatic.” Blackburn is merely taking his older formal, academic arguments to their logical, real world conclusions.

By: qb

qb — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:44:04 +0000

abb1, this is serious business. analyzing Blackburn’s offhand foolishness is the Lord’s own work! i remain stubbornly committed to not having any fun.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:31:13 +0000

er, NOT talking to them.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:30:51 +0000

Blackburn is arrogant and disrespectful. So is McGinn. So is Tyler Cowen

Well, fine. But you’re talking to them here. You’re talking to us.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:59:27 +0000

“76 was still really annoying, tho.”
25 years ago when I began trying to argue these points, then in the context of contemporary art and politics, the response was either contemptuous dismissal or silence. That hasn’t changed.

When Steven Weinberg writes a book titled “Science and Its Cultural Adversaries” and includes as one of its chapters “Zionism and Its Adversaries” he’s using the literary form of analogy no different than that used by Alan Sokal in “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” Sokal’s piece was written as a Hoax. Is Weinberg’s?
I’m sick of Platonists who want to ban poetry and defend their arguments with literary devices. I’m sick of Catholics who say they’re atheists and of elitist academics who call themselves leftists intellectuals.
Blackburn is arrogant and disrespectful. So is McGinn. So is Tyler Cowen, the smiling economic [social] Darwinist. So are all the people I get in fights with. So am I. But I don’t hide behind numbers. Cowen says “Don’t hate me I’m just the messenger. Don’t hate reason”.
I admit it, I’m unreasonable. But I’m not here for friendship I’m here for revenge. Hate the messenger all you want, I win my cases.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:27:54 +0000

Lighten up, everybody.

By: engels

engels — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:46:13 +0000

No-one said “just joking!” (cf #74).

But wouldn’t it be equally annoying, somewhat kindergarteny and condscending, if he started with: “Now I know each of you are special in your own way, but…”

Yes, I think you’re right.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:10:24 +0000

As some commenters above seem to realize, there is a genre that might be called the provocative squib

But as other commenters realize, saying “just joking!” does not grant blanket absolution for saying anything, however stupid or offensive.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:07:33 +0000

… reading more of McGinn’s blog, I have to admit there is somebody who really does deserve the full Edenbaum treatment. He’s written a dozen books but has he read any? He writes like a grumpy, bewildered old bigot from central casting, or a minor character on South park: “You know what’s wrong witht eh world today? You can’t calla nybody ‘stupid,’ not even stupid people. That’s what’s wrong!” That’s barely even a paraphrase.

76 was still really annoying, tho.

By: LC

LC — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:58:23 +0000

As some commenters above seem to realize, there is a genre that might be called the provocative squib (or something like that), to which this piece belongs. Wilde and Shaw were better at it, but that doesn’t mean Blackburn shouldn’t try his hand. Yes, one can subject his claims to telling criticisms (as some have), but basically I think it’s supposed to be funny and to show off the author’s ability to produce apposite quotations from Locke, Hume, etc. You read it quickly, laugh a couple of times (or not), and forget it. (Btw, I once happened to hear Blackburn give a serious talk to a small group of students. Completely different tone and persona than evident here.)

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:58:02 +0000

Was McGinn’s argument any less offensive than Blackburn’s?

No. It’s appallingly vicious and ignorant.

And if you had posted something like, “Blackburn’s opinions aren’t that unusual among academic philosophers. Colin McGinn, for instance, thinks that ‘recognized experts’ should be able to overrule elected officials, etc.”, then I would have agreed enthusiastically (and thanked you, as I suppose I still should, for introducing me to a good example of what’s wrong with political philosophy.)

The problem is that you have some interesting stuff to say but you can’t seem to say it without an almost parodic degree of preening and voguing and sneering at those less enlightened, i.e. all of us.

For what it’s worth (nothing) I don’t think Henry should have banned you, tho.