tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post29570195129076101..comments2024-02-20T12:26:24.682-05:00Comments on language goes on holiday: Critical thinking againDuncan Richterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-680243044042513302013-06-26T17:12:58.192-04:002013-06-26T17:12:58.192-04:00Professor Leiter, one more thought about the choic...Professor Leiter, one more thought about the choice of the word 'medium.' Maybe the thinking was this: the people you identify as party-line continental philosophers probably tend not to read your blog, vote in your polls, or have their views represented in the PGR as much as other philosophers do (I don't know whether this is true, but someone might think it); on the other hand, the type of analytic philosopher who is dismissive of all continental philosophy might be especially drawn to your blog and its polls because of the whole my-enemy's-enemy business; therefore the comments on your blog and the results of the polls you conduct might be thought to have a bias in favor of that type of analytic philosophy. I don't know whether there is any such bias, nor whether large numbers of people believe there to be such a bias, but, again, I can imagine people thinking this. They might also think that the PGR is biased in a similar way. I don't know why they would think this, but I can imagine that they do. In fact I would be surprised if no one had ever accused it of suffering from such a bias. (I'm not sure why I would be surprised--perhaps I'm remembering reading such a complaint somewhere. Indeed, a Google search for "PGR bias" quickly turns up people accusing the PGR of having a bias against continental philosophy.) So in these ways I can imagine someone, especially the kind of continental philosopher you most strongly disagree with, thinking that the comments section of your blog and your polls, and perhaps even the PGR, had become an instrument for the dissemination and strengthening of a view of what philosophy ought to be that is favored by a certain kind of dismissive analytic philosopher. If this makes sense (regardless of how wrong anyone might be to think such a thing) then it is possible that someone could claim that you (really meaning your blog, and <i>perhaps</i> the PGR) had become a medium for a certain model of philosophy despite this not being a model that you yourself advocate. <br /><br />At any rate, this is the kind of thinking that I believe lies behind the obscure complaint that Harman quoted. To the extent that I have succeeded in explaining why I think this I have probably explained it at great enough length, so I'll stop. If you've had the patience to read this far then thanks for listening, and I hope this makes some sense. Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-90257756139847796282013-06-26T16:02:21.188-04:002013-06-26T16:02:21.188-04:00Thank you.
If you're accustomed to hearing f...Thank you. <br /><br />If you're accustomed to hearing false claims made about you then it makes sense that you would read the email Harman quoted as more of the same thing. I've encountered both praise and criticism of you and your work, but all of it has been more or less plausible, i.e. even when false, not jaw-droppingly so. So I didn't read it that way.<br /><br />I agree with you that the whole "medium for a model..." locution is obscure. Could it mean that you are somehow a medium for a message that you do not believe? If it meant that, then I think it would have to imply either that you were some sort of "useful idiot" or puppet for some other group (and this really would be an absurd claim) or else that your blog conveyed this other message, presumably through comments and posts not written by you. That seems unlikely too, though it would be less absurd. <br /><br />What seems to me more probable is that the idea was that, not you personally, but your blog and the PGR have become a sort of focal point for a certain kind of dismissive analytic philosopher. And this not because you are such a person yourself but because you are seen as an enemy of the kind of thinking that these people are most dismissive of, namely a particular kind of continental philosophy. And, I imagine Harman's correspondent thinking, you are not just <i>an</i> enemy of that kind of philosophy but the best known, most outspoken opponent of it. To the dismissive types, then, you may well be seen as "my enemy's enemy." I don't know whether any of these dismissive analytic types think of you as a kind of hero nor, if they do, whether it is for this reason. But I can imagine that they might well.<br /><br />Now, if this is what was meant, or something close to it at least, why use the word 'medium' rather than 'focal point' or perhaps 'rallying point'? (And why refer to you rather than your blog or the PGR?) I don't know, and this is a weak point in my interpretation. (I don't find it too implausible that someone would use your name as shorthand for your blog and the PGR though.) But my interpretation, as convoluted as it might seem, seems to me both more natural than yours and to lead to a thesis that might be true rather than one that is, as I've said, jaw-droppingly false. <br /><br />Of course what seems more natural than what else, what more plausible, and what more jaw-dropping, are all somewhat subjective matters, about which reasonable people might disagree. I hope I have at least presented my perspective clearly, even if it still doesn't seem plausible to you. Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-81828077000616503972013-06-26T14:35:40.355-04:002013-06-26T14:35:40.355-04:00Sorry for the typo: that should have read "b...Sorry for the typo: that should have read "becomes an object of slight paranoid ire" not "because."<br /><br />BLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-40941211249105323882013-06-26T14:34:44.337-04:002013-06-26T14:34:44.337-04:00Professor Richter:
Thanks for your reply. I stil...Professor Richter:<br /><br />Thanks for your reply. I still do not see how I can be a medium for a message that is the opposite of what I explicitly believe, write about, and teach--and the opposite of what the PGR covers. I also offered my own hypothesis: namely, that when someone because an object of slightly paranoid ire for a group of people--say, the Tea Party and Obama, or Party-Line Continentals and me--then it is characteristic for members of that group to project jaw-dropping falsehoods on to the object.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />Brian LeiterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-74026372008146159802013-06-26T07:15:04.327-04:002013-06-26T07:15:04.327-04:00I'll have to check that out. Thanks!I'll have to check that out. Thanks!Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-56123018688827955012013-06-25T23:22:50.183-04:002013-06-25T23:22:50.183-04:00sounds like a new vein of x-philo in the making, I...sounds like a new vein of x-philo in the making, I think that Rupert Read has done some writing on Wittgenstein/zen and there is a quite good book of essays:http://academia.edu/187641/Perspicuous_Presentations_Essays_on_Wittgensteins_Philosophy_of_Psychology<br />that one could build on, cheers, dmfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-12467804283551740572013-06-25T17:49:10.205-04:002013-06-25T17:49:10.205-04:00Yes. And teaching conscientiousness, if it ever ha...Yes. And teaching conscientiousness, if it ever happened much, seems to be becoming a thing of the past. At least it has an old-fashioned sound to it.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-50478894877027733182013-06-25T17:47:11.876-04:002013-06-25T17:47:11.876-04:00Thanks for the comment, with most of which (includ...Thanks for the comment, with most of which (including the entire second paragraph) I agree. I'll try to answer your question, although I'm not sure I have much to add to what I've said before. <br /><br /><i>What is the point of a "charitable" reading that makes claims you aren't prepared to defend as true?</i><br /><br />The point is to understand what others are saying. Whether one then agrees with them is another matter. The point of reading charitably is partly a matter of generosity, but mostly a useful means to get at what was really meant. If on one reading a statement is blatantly false it's worth considering the possibility that that's a mis-reading. Of course one is still constrained by what was actually written, but in this case I think the reading according to which an obviously and straightforwardly false statement about your views was made is not the most natural reading of the text.<br /><br />Here's the sentence in question: "[W]hat’s become a more interesting story is the way that [Leiter has] also become a medium for a very specific model of anglophone philosophy that is dismissive of all forms of history of philosophy, metaphysics, pragmatism, continental philosophy, philosophy of art, etc."<br /><br />If the author meant that <i>you</i> were dismissive of all forms of history of philosophy, etc., then not only would this be jaw-droppingly false, but also one would have to wonder why s/he didn't <i>say</i> that you were dismissive of these things. Why say instead that you had become a medium, etc., and that how you had done so was an interesting story? Call it charity, "charity," rationalization, elaborate re-reading, or whatever you like, but it is these considerations that led me to think (indeed to regard it as perfectly obvious) that the author meant something more complex and plausible than what you take her/him to have meant. I realize now that what seems obvious to me does not to you, and to others, and of course I know that something's seeming obvious to me does not make it true. But these are the reasons why I regard the sentence in question as requiring some unpacking, and I have done my best to unpack its likely contents as best I can. It is not because I have some sort of pro-SPEP or anti-you (or anti-Leiter Reports or anti-PGR) agenda. I have no such agenda. Your response to Harman's post surprised me, and I have tried to make sense of both it and the post that prompted it. <br /><br />I cannot know whether I've got Harman's reader's meaning right, but I appreciate your clarifying your view of the matter. Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-14933234774422664302013-06-25T16:52:48.366-04:002013-06-25T16:52:48.366-04:00yes our cognitive-biases are many and quite resist...yes our cognitive-biases are many and quite resistant/resilient and there seems to be a real lack in education in terms of coming to grip with the still nascent research into such, so that this <br />"Few people even try to teach such conscientiousness" seems to be at the crux of the matter, how to make people more aware/attentive in their lives...<br />-dmfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-6488678715233893892013-06-25T15:57:21.852-04:002013-06-25T15:57:21.852-04:00I do not know you, nor do I know what would have m...I do not know you, nor do I know what would have motivated you to produce this elaborate re-reading of the fabrications that Graham Harman posted; but that you now admit that your supposedly "charitable" re-reading might also be false is a striking admission. What is the point of a "charitable" reading that makes claims you aren't prepared to defend as true? (As the earlier commenter notes, the absence of any evidence probably makes your more agnostic posture a wise one.)<br /><br />I have expert and informed opinions about a variety of topics, and in a free country, I can express them. I am not precluded from expressing them because others suffer from status anxiety of various kinds; that is their problem, not mine. And others may of course express contrary opinions to mine (as they do all the time, despite supposed status anxiety). Others may even produce tortured "rationalizations" (to quote the earlier comment) of false statements, and describe them as an exercise in "charitable" reading. To each his own!<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />Brian LeiterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-52728260204555175772013-06-25T10:37:04.323-04:002013-06-25T10:37:04.323-04:00Me neither. Partly this is because the usual sound...Me neither. Partly this is because the usual sound-bite/gut-reaction punditry is not as bad as I tend to think it is. That is, I write off in my mind people and opinions that I would actually struggle to defeat in a real debate. I write them off because I'm confident that I would beat them in the end, but professional rationalizers of, say, right-wing views are actually somewhat sophisticated. They have rhetorical skills, for one thing, and various economic and faith-based ideologies to lean on. <br /><br />Partly, though, it's because we all tend to be intellectually lazy, or not to realize how little we know or understand. We tend not to be conscientious in our use of words, for instance. Few people even try to teach such conscientiousness, I think. Which is a shame. Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-35111266544430882582013-06-25T10:27:54.103-04:002013-06-25T10:27:54.103-04:00Well, no, it isn't, unless you understand '...Well, no, it isn't, unless you understand 'rationalize' very differently from the way I understand it. Harman published part of an email, and I'm attempting not to justify that email but to understand it. Naturally in doing so I try to read it charitably, but that's all. The main evidence I have to go on is what Harman and Leiter quote of the email, but I don't see how that reflects poorly on me. There is also, of course, the general context: who Leiter is, what he does, what others think of him, and so on. This information all helps when trying to make sense of something written about him. And the email, or what I've seen quoted of it, is not about Leiter's views at all. What it claims is that Leiter has become a medium for a certain model. That's an odd form of words, but it doesn't seem to me to be about Leiter's views. Taken as a statement about his views it is clearly false, as Leiter has pointed out. Taken as I find it most natural to read it, it makes a certain sense, as I have explained above. It might still be false, of course, but that's another matter. Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-16864746259190215272013-06-25T09:37:54.707-04:002013-06-25T09:37:54.707-04:00to pick up on the Witt quote and circle back to ou...to pick up on the Witt quote and circle back to our ongoing conversation about the value/use of non-technical/stems education when I talk to folks with BA's and graduate degrees(including profs and witness the many non-technical, in the analytic sense,to and fros@newapps) about subjects outside of their specialties, like say politics/economics, I see little to no evidence that they are thinking/talking outside of the usual sound-bite/gut-reaction punditry that makes the gossip-world goes round, little to no capacity to re-cognize what they don't know about very complex and in motion processes, and too much of a sense of being in the know, being "highly" educated.<br />-dmf Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-61770830351353943392013-06-25T09:01:57.471-04:002013-06-25T09:01:57.471-04:00This is a very complicated attempt to rationalize,...This is a very complicated attempt to rationalize, without much evidence, what are, in fact, fabrications about Leiter's views that Graham Harman published.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com