tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post7349159892808236140..comments2024-02-20T12:26:24.682-05:00Comments on language goes on holiday: Pinker is wrongDuncan Richterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-59797309178309609392013-12-15T19:07:36.103-05:002013-12-15T19:07:36.103-05:00For people who choose faith I suppose religion doe...For people who choose faith I suppose religion does serve to make them feel good, but not everyone chooses it. My Hindu and Jewish friends (I sound like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVM_fbJx-R0" rel="nofollow">Lyle Lanley</a>) tell me that you are just born into those religions. And I'm sure it's the same in (some) other religions too. And yes, it's more complex than a drug high (although that could be pretty complex too). It involves, at least in some cases, an attempt at making sense of life, after all, which drugs aren't likely to (even seem to) help one do.<br /><br />The experience of seeing a performance of a play might be something about which one might be inarticulate, yes, but, as you say, we expect reasons and ideas and insights from critics. I think we agree on that.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-27952608407317648122013-12-15T11:28:20.660-05:002013-12-15T11:28:20.660-05:00But doesn't religion serve to make us feel goo...But doesn't religion serve to make us feel good, at least in the sense of assuaging certain fears and concerns or telling us there's a purpose, larger than ourselves, to which we may devote ourselves, to which we should devote ourselves?<br /><br />Granted it's an apparently more complex sense of "feeling good" than a drug high (though perhaps only more complex in a different sense). Still, isn't that often the driving force when someone chooses faith over skepticism (or, even skepticism over faith)? Any such choice may have its own basis, its own logic, and perhaps nothing can be evaluated in terms of something else when you come down to it, but then isn't that what valuing is all about, comparing, contrasting and deciding between one thing and another?<br /><br />If a critic says nothing more than "mmm" of Hamlet, we would say he or she isn't much of a critic. We want reasons and ideas and insights from critics. But would his or her appreciation necessarily be any less because he or she was finally inarticulate about the experience of seeing the performance? And isn't "mmm" sometimes just the right form of expression under the circumstances?Stuart W. Mirskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247784373895331173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-66391314990123984202013-12-15T10:48:20.312-05:002013-12-15T10:48:20.312-05:00It is very common, I believe, among scholars of re...It is very common, I believe, among scholars of religion to say that you can't understand religion unless you are religious. My wife has a PhD from a religion department and this was a major topic of debate, politics, etc. there. I think it's false, as I say, but it's related to something true. <br /><br />Things obviously are not true just because they make us feel good. Nor is it a good idea to do everything that makes us feel good. But there is far more to the kind of appreciation/understanding that I'm talking about than feeling good. A critic who said "mm!" at Hamlet but could be no more articulate than this would not be said to understand the play at all well. And something similar goes for religion. Which is not to say that religion and art are the same thing. They have similarities, though, and neither is a mechanism to be understood purely scientifically. Nor does either offer a scientific theory of anything.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-17426024487736159312013-12-15T09:41:43.051-05:002013-12-15T09:41:43.051-05:00Hmmm, I see I said "'understanding' m...Hmmm, I see I said "'understanding' may be taken as a synonym for "understanding'." The first "understanding" should have been "appreciation". Sorry about that. But it does suggest just how close these words can be. I suppose one COULD say that you can't understand religion unless you are religious in some sense but that strikes me as a very highly specialized use of "understand" as in you can't understand it's full force on a believer unless you experience the state of believing it, too. But then it's a particular experience we are being called on to grasp, to understand, not the religion as doctrine or belief system (in terms of its logic, internal or otherwise). Of course it may just be true that questions of getting a religion or the like really do hinge on experiencing it rather than grasping its conceptual implications and maybe that's all Wittgenstein had in mind when he suggested that being religious (enrolling in a particular religious viewpoint) is not about proving the veridical nature of its claims. But, if so, I think that's a weak basis for embracing religion, i.e., because it makes us feel good! So does heroin.Stuart W. Mirskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247784373895331173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-68113570226979495422013-12-13T12:07:29.687-05:002013-12-13T12:07:29.687-05:00Yes, and among the senses of 'understand' ...Yes, and among the senses of 'understand' and 'appreciate' there's a sense in which you can't be said to understand the play unless you enjoy it, isn't there? Or at least something like that is true, which is like the idea that you can't understand religion unless you are religious. These ideas are obviously false, but they are, I think, attempts to express something true. You have to get it. And the clearest sign that you do get it is that you give yourself to it (take up the religion, voluntarily read or see the play, etc.). You have to <i>see the appeal</i>, not just what it is that appeals to people. And that means seeing the play/religion/whatever as good, in an appealing light (i.e. a light that appeals to <i>you</i>). It is possible to see the appeal and yet resist it. Perhaps other things appeal even more. But there is a kind of understanding, a sense of 'understanding', that inescapably involves the self, the subject. Perhaps the humanities are the subjective disciplines in this sense. Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-35742069515564235512013-12-13T11:49:28.101-05:002013-12-13T11:49:28.101-05:00Appreciation, as in enjoying a performance (or rea...Appreciation, as in enjoying a performance (or reading) Hamlet, is different from understanding Hamlet (as in recognizing the words and getting them), though understanding how the author achieved his effects can be appreciated separately and/or as part of an overall appreciation of the work. So understanding, of different aspects, seems inextricably linked to appreciation. Similarly, "understanding" may, in some cases, be taken for a synonym of "understanding," as in when we speak of appreciating the force of an argument. I suppose neither "understanding" nor "appreciate" can be said to mean just one thing. But then, what else is new?Stuart W. Mirskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12247784373895331173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-73658174697231088492013-11-25T16:33:05.687-05:002013-11-25T16:33:05.687-05:00Myers starts with some stuff about religion that I...Myers starts with some stuff about religion that I either don't understand or else disagree with, but otherwise he's very good on this.<br /><br />As for knowing how Hamlet works or why it's so good I suppose I could accept that this isn't knowledge if 'knowledge' is defined in a particular kind of way. Maybe. But if someone insisted that understanding was not involved then I think I would just think they were crazy (or stupid, but Rosenberg isn't that). Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-43532588635667085542013-11-25T15:31:40.237-05:002013-11-25T15:31:40.237-05:00I particularly appreciate the response by PZ Myers...I particularly appreciate the response by PZ Myers given what little I know about his blog and the tone there at times.<br /><br />But perhaps one could reply to your Hamlet objection to the effect that there is nothing to KNOW here. We can have fun reading Hamlet, etc., but this is not a knowledge enterprise. (An acquaintance suggested that something like this view is defended in Alex Rosenberg's book. This seems hopelessly wrong, but, alas, there it is...)Matthew Pianaltohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16380038537888895216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-30890787585211312202013-11-25T12:32:33.587-05:002013-11-25T12:32:33.587-05:00Fish in a barrel? Well, it is the best place to sh...Fish in a barrel? Well, it is the best place to shoot them. <br /><br />I think I got the Ray Monk link from you, so thanks for that.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-6483763775340077322013-11-25T12:30:47.282-05:002013-11-25T12:30:47.282-05:00I've wanted to read something by her for a lon...I've wanted to read something by her for a long time. Never have. I guess it's time to make that right.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-62041359572100859172013-11-25T12:10:34.168-05:002013-11-25T12:10:34.168-05:00"Steve Pinker is wrong" has the form &qu..."Steve Pinker is wrong" has the form "one plays patience by oneself".Philip Cartwrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11458571502536123264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-85468481586813875402013-11-25T10:56:19.077-05:002013-11-25T10:56:19.077-05:00he's a twit but his wife often has interesting...he's a twit but his wife often has interesting things to say on science and the humanities: http://www.rebeccagoldstein.com/<br />-dmfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com