As this blog does not recognize the institution of the EU [as distinct from the EEC] and as Lisbon has not been ratified, then these elections are a sham and this humble blogger doesn’t intend to comment any further on them.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
[philosophy] sophistry and pseudo-intellectualism
Wittgenstein, in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [1922] opined:
It would surprise some for an anti-philosopher to quote Wittgenstein but there we are. In that matter, he was quite right.
One of the major tasks of my students at university was to take tomes by seemingly eminent writers and to spend 70% of the available time translating them into a form of English that an educated English speaker could comprehend, thence to break down the key concepts into clear writing and the remaining 10% of the time both internalizing the points made and deciding if they were worth the effort of undertaking the exercise in the first place.
I reject utterly the thesis that in order to be labelled intellectual, one must speak or write in an unintelligible manner, coining obscure personal definitions and bamboozling the hoi-polloi with one’s erudition. There is, unfortunately, in academia, this attitude that to retain one’s chair, one must speak and write in a learned [read opaque] form and there are various assumed unassailable truisms, e.g. Voltaire had something edifying to say.
The thing one must never do is to mock the holy cows, something I very much did in my piece on philosophy being sophistry. You’d need to be a roamer of the hallowed halls to appreciate how badly that post would have gone down in certain circles and how ‘lager loutish’ the writer of it would be viewed by his erstwhile colleagues. ‘Philistine’, ‘pseudo-intellectual’ and ‘amateur’ are just three ad hominems to be flung at such a one who would thus betray his peer group.
It’s not the philosophy itself which I take issue with but the way certain assumptions about the deist position are taken as read before the discussion even gets underway. The false syllogisms and the false first premises in philosophical discussions, as taught in university courses, can be both breathtakingly specious and horrifying at the same time, especially when ad hominem is projected back onto the detractor, never an acceptable position in a philosophical discussion in the first place.
Hence my charge of sophistry in the manner in which philosophical discussion takes place in so many instances.
Cassandra may be right to say that philosophy does not equal sophistry but the two certainly have a nodding acquaintance with one another in the halls of academia.
On Saturday there’ll be a short post showing how the use of gobbledegook to reinforce, in the initiate, the all-knowingness of the adept is a key strategy in the broader community, particularly with groups like Common Purpose.
What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
It would surprise some for an anti-philosopher to quote Wittgenstein but there we are. In that matter, he was quite right.
One of the major tasks of my students at university was to take tomes by seemingly eminent writers and to spend 70% of the available time translating them into a form of English that an educated English speaker could comprehend, thence to break down the key concepts into clear writing and the remaining 10% of the time both internalizing the points made and deciding if they were worth the effort of undertaking the exercise in the first place.
I reject utterly the thesis that in order to be labelled intellectual, one must speak or write in an unintelligible manner, coining obscure personal definitions and bamboozling the hoi-polloi with one’s erudition. There is, unfortunately, in academia, this attitude that to retain one’s chair, one must speak and write in a learned [read opaque] form and there are various assumed unassailable truisms, e.g. Voltaire had something edifying to say.
The thing one must never do is to mock the holy cows, something I very much did in my piece on philosophy being sophistry. You’d need to be a roamer of the hallowed halls to appreciate how badly that post would have gone down in certain circles and how ‘lager loutish’ the writer of it would be viewed by his erstwhile colleagues. ‘Philistine’, ‘pseudo-intellectual’ and ‘amateur’ are just three ad hominems to be flung at such a one who would thus betray his peer group.
It’s not the philosophy itself which I take issue with but the way certain assumptions about the deist position are taken as read before the discussion even gets underway. The false syllogisms and the false first premises in philosophical discussions, as taught in university courses, can be both breathtakingly specious and horrifying at the same time, especially when ad hominem is projected back onto the detractor, never an acceptable position in a philosophical discussion in the first place.
Hence my charge of sophistry in the manner in which philosophical discussion takes place in so many instances.
Cassandra may be right to say that philosophy does not equal sophistry but the two certainly have a nodding acquaintance with one another in the halls of academia.
On Saturday there’ll be a short post showing how the use of gobbledegook to reinforce, in the initiate, the all-knowingness of the adept is a key strategy in the broader community, particularly with groups like Common Purpose.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
[thought for the day] wednesday evening
The people never give up their liberties, except under some delusion.
[Edmund Burke, 1784, attributed]
[Edmund Burke, 1784, attributed]
[ladies and gays] your word is my command
This blog, having come under fire lately for the vastly out of proportion representation of scantily clad females of a youngish aspect [all over 23], hereby presents twelve specimens of male hunkdom for your delectation.
May I also humbly submit that, on Friday, there’s a little post coming up to further redress the balance. After that, we’ll see what we can do for the trannies and metros.
There you go.
May I also humbly submit that, on Friday, there’s a little post coming up to further redress the balance. After that, we’ll see what we can do for the trannies and metros.
There you go.[bonking] an honest answer to blogger queries
Certain of you august readers did raise the question about poor Julia, so this is an attempt to fill you in with part of an article about her:
Die NPD gibt den Volkstribun als Antiglobalisierungspartei und Hüterin der völkischen Identität. Offen bekennt sie sich dabei nur zu ihrer Ablehnung der Europäischen Integration und aller Weltoffenheit. Vor dem Hintergrund vermeintlicher Standort- und Demographieargumente leben die NPD-Politiker ihre Xenophobie aus. Dabei nutzen sie die Verunsicherung der Bevölkerung in Zeiten von Sozialabbau und Arbeitsplatzunsicherheit.Hope that makes it clear.
One needs to be careful with certain foreign names in the English sphere and certain English language names in the foreign sphere. For example, a Russian friend of mine once advised me to be careful when mentioning the British writer Minette Marrin. I was asked if it woud not be perhaps better to refer to her as Ms Marrin?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)