Der Philosoph, der tritt herein,
Und beweist euch, es müßt’ so seyn.
The philosophe will show
Us all it must be so.
Goethe, Faust, quoted by Schopenhauer,
Parerga & Paralipomena, “Zur Farbenlehre”:
at Google Books
quotefig.png

Search this site

  • Using
    find
lpssgssndhbbscmpnl

Recent

Cætera

Bookmarks

dillseedsmain.png
·

Archive: Current Affairs

Main

Pundit makes stuff up, is refuted

Current Affairs · NewAPPS · Philosophy of Philosophy ·· More from July 2011
Stanley Fish has recently asserted that “the conclusions reached in philosophical disquisitions do not travel. They do not travel into contexts that are not explicitly philosophical […], and they do not even make their way into the non-philosophical lives of those who hold them”. This is at best a gross overgeneralization; it can be refuted by five minutes’ research online.*
No doubt lots of people will step up to defend the relevance of philosophical conclusions. I want to consider a different issue. Once upon a time when a poobah like Fish issued pronouncements like this, it would have taken time to gather the evidence to refute him. Now it takes almost no time or expense. It seems that by and large the poobahs have yet to catch on, perhaps because for poobahs research is optional. When they pontificate on the day’s events, they mostly rely on their general knowledge. This is owing no doubt to deadline pressures; but it is also characteristic of the role. A well-furnished mind has been, since the days of Cicero at least, a prerequisite of the orator; but even the most well-furnished have lacunæ and lapses, and one suspects that some of our poobahs’ furnishings are sparse.
When I lecture I sometimes find myself veering into topics I haven’t prepared and don’t know much about. I too have to fall back on my general knowledge. I used to be able to count on knowing more than my students on most of the subjects I was likely to veer into. But now they have computers and iPads. If I don’t get a date or name right they can catch it almost immediately. They sometimes do, and sometimes they tell me. I’ve learned two things: one is not to fake it, the other is to take advantage of those computers and iPads—have them do some fact-checking for me. It’s instructive for both of us.
The issue I want to raise is: what becomes of “general knowledge”, or rather the social value of having lots of it, now that anyone with a phone or tablet can simulate the possession of a well-furnished mind? Is the orator’s storehouse obsolete? And if poobah discourse, like the extemporaneous public oratory of Chautauqua days, depends for its effect partly on the impressive marshalling of general knowledge, will it now gradually fade away?
*The issue Fish raises is real enough, and has a long history: for one case, see Miles Burnyeat, “Can the Sceptic Live his Scepticism?”, in Richard Rorty et al (eds.), Philosophy in History (1980) and the subsequent literature.

LinkAugust 3, 2011

Next »

Wise fool

Current Affairs ·· More from July 2009
Bill Kristol, son of Irving, plays the contrarian in reacting to Sarah Palin’s resignation. In a burst of controlled enthusiasm, he writes:
All in all, it’s going to be a high-wire act. The odds are against her pulling it off. But I wouldn’t bet against it.
—“A Contrarian Take” Weekly Standard 3 Jul 2009
I think we can see why Mr. Kristol has been wrong about so many things. Here he wears his irrationality on his sleeve.
Now I’m not sure that rational choice theory captures the essence of rationality. But I am quite sure that if I estimate the odds of rolling snake eyes at 35 to 1 and then bet even money I’m going to be short of cash before too long.
But just to show that rationality, of whatever cast, does a poor job at predicting behavior, Mr. Kristol has in fact done quite well in the last eight years. Being wrong has paid off. In an irrational culture, it pays to be irrational. Not about everything, of course; what works is well-timed, well-placed stupidity. To be stupid in Kristol’s way takes a lot of smarts.
I forgot—or maybe I never remembered—that Mr. Kristol was Dan Quayle’s chief of staff. Talk about falling upward! Fortunately Steve Schmidt hasn’t forgotten, and he was kind enough to remind Mr. Kristol recently. Unfortunately some say that Schmidt has a “congenital aversion to the truth”—he was lying before he could talk, the little rascal.

LinkJuly 4, 2009

Next »

We read stuff

Current Affairs · Language ·· More from June 2009
Des mots, toujours des mots
langue au chat
Like English, French has its word-hounds, its mavens, its amateurs vraiment amants. At Le Monde, which is roughly the New York Times of France, two copy-editors divert themselves with Langue sauce piquante. Martine Rousseau & Olivier Houdart comment on matters typo-, ortho-, lexico-, and sometimes autobiographical. One sees in the comments that questions of language boil the blood no less reliably in French as in English.
Confining themselves to the lexicographical, Le Mot du jour (rss) and Le Garde-mots (rss) will augment your vocabulary in daily or semiweekly doses. If there were a French SAT, Le Mot du jour would help you pass it with items like vocifération nitescence (also in Le Garde-mots), and pugnace.
Alain Horvilleur, the author, has published an almanac of words from Le Garde-mots (Jacques André, 2009, 978-2-7570-0088-5).
The specimens at Le Garde-mots are more exotic: panspermie, calotype, gaudepisse (with five synonyms). Learn words like this and they won’t laugh at you next time you hang out at the Luxembourg. Not to your face, anyway.
As long as I’m dealing in words, I may as well mention Wordie, a “social lexicon” where you can create word lists, comment on words, and find images associated with them (this function is iffy).
You’re a reader. At this very moment. (But maybe not now.) Habitual readers tend to like to read about reading and readers. If so, you’ll like Lali. Lali deals mostly in representations of readers reading—paintings, for the most part, but also photographs and sculptures. The text is in French, the images are of no language. Series include: “Anecdotes du libraire” and “À livres ouverts”.

LinkJuly 4, 2009

Next »

Odium libertatis

Academic Affairs · Current Affairs · Religion ·· More from May 2009
[See Update.] I’m not sure why anyone would expect Liberty University (the late Jerry Falwell’s Collegio Romano) to be even-handed in its treatment of Democrats and Republicans. However much the two parties may resemble one another in their allegiance to corporate interests, on certain matters dear to the heart of the fundamentalist Christians who run the University, Democratic positions are anathema and Republican positions are not.
Since late last year, Democrats on campus have had a club. This month the University withdrew its sponsorship, which means that the club gets no money and cannot use the name or logo of Liberty U in its communications.
An email from Liberty’s VP of student affairs, Mark Hine, to the College Democrats announces that the University has just finished a review of its policy on campus organizations. It then cites what seems to be a section of the Honor Code:
No student club or organization shall be approved, recognized or permitted to meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use University facilities if the statements, positions, doctrines, policies, constitutions, bylaws, platforms, activities or events of such club or organization, its parent, affiliate, chapter or similarly named group (even if the similarly named group is not the actual parent, affiliate or chapter) are inconsistent or in conflict with the distinctly Christian mission of the University, the Liberty Way, the Honor Code, or the policies and procedures promulgated by the University.
Hine applies the rule to the case at hand. Because the positions of the Democratic party are “inconsistent or in conflict with the distinctly Christian mission of the University” or with the “Liberty Way”,
We are removing the club from the Liberty website and you will need to cease using Liberty University’s name, including any logo, seal or mark of Liberty University. They are not to be used in any of your publications, electronic or internet, including but not limited to, any website, Facebook, Twitter or any other such publication.
It’s worth noting that though the University’s rule effectively calls for a ban on meetings in University facilites, its action consisted only in denying to the club the use of the University’s name and logo. Nevertheless the implication is that the club, since it meets the conditions of the rule, could have been, and indeed should have been, banned altogether. The tone of the letter is that of a cease-and-desist letter, intended to intimidate.
Once the decision became a target of criticism, Jerry Falwell, Jr. issued a response in which, after complaining about media coverage, he denies that the “Democrat club” was banned:
The students who formed the Democrat club last October are good students. They are pro-life and believe in traditional marriage [in fact those positions are written into the club’s constitution]. They can continue to meet on campus. The only thing that has changed came about as part of a university-wide review of all student organizations for official recognition status. Official recognition carries with it the benefit of using the university name and funds. While this group will not be an officially recognized club, it may still meet on campus.
That’s true but a bit disingenuous. The club may meet, perhaps, but only on the sufferance of the administration: they would be tolerated, like prostitutes in a red-light district. At a later meeting with members of the club, the University offered the club the option of regaining recognition by becoming an affiliate of Democrats for Life of America, which opposes abortion; doing so would bring them into compliance with the rule. As of a few days ago, they were still mulling it over.
The College Republicans think that the Democrats’ club (which began shortly before the 2008 election) provides a welcome opportunity for debate.
Meanwhile, on the 26th, University administrators met again with members of the club. They wanted an apology for what they regarded as false claims made by the club’s president, Brian Diaz, and others to the media, mostly concerning Hine’s email.
The club is going to apologize. My sense is that Diaz and the others, who, as far as I can tell, are against abortion and gay marriage, found themselves in an exposed position—Terry McAuliffe and other Democratic leaders in the state had begun to cite the ban—and needed to back down. For its part the University, represented by Hine and Falwell himself, has done its best to persuade them.
And the moral is…
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has written a letter to the IRS urging that Liberty University’s tax-exempt status be reviewed (they’ve done so before). Liberty University has announced plans to file suit against Americans United. On what basis, I’m not sure.
Not much. Commenters have argued that the University has violated principles of free speech and have raised First Amendment issues. But the University has no obligation to respect principles of free speech, and doesn’t claim to. (People tend to invoke notions of the university as a site of free inquiry, but that is at best a recent and somewhat parochial way of conceiving the institution. Liberty University makes no pretense of being that sort of university; like, say, Oxford University until the 1870s, it promotes free inquiry but only within the faith.) Moreover if TaxProf is right, Liberty’s tax-exempt status is not jeopardized by its action.
The one live issue, mentioned by Ed Brayton, is that the University demands for Christian groups elsewhere the recognition it refuses to the Campus Democrats. Liberty University, or rather an outfit called Liberty Counsel that now operates under the aegis of its law school, has argued—and won—a case in which a campus religious group, Gator Christian Life, was denied official recognition on the grounds that it violated a policy against discrimination on the basis of religious preference.
I don’t think Brayton has much of an argument. The parallel would have been this: suppose Lib U had a clause in its rules governing clubs to the effect that clubs could not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, and proceeded to deny recognition to the Democratic club on the grounds that they did so discriminate. The Democrats could quite reasonably answer that it is in the nature of political clubs to require of their members that they subscribe to the principles of the club, and thus to discriminate between those who do and those who don’t. The issue raised by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Gator Christian Life isn’t one of free speech, it’s that some anti-discrimination principles are incompatible with some sorts of club. Liberty Counsel argued, successfully, that in the case of Gator Christian Life, the University’s blanket principle of non-discrimination must admit an exception.
Now there may be sorts of club whose raison d’être is so at odds with the principles of a university, or with moral principles generally, that any hint of endorsement would involve the university either in glaring inconsistency (e.g. a club whose purpose was to intimidate professors in the classroom) or moral wrong (a whites-only club). Liberty University takes the Democratic club to have been of this sort, insofar as its recognition by the University would be taken to be an endorsement somehow of the principles of the national Democratic party, principles that the University finds grossly at odds with its “Christian mission” (Falwell and co. tend to say that the pro-choice position is not Christian, but that’s descriptively false and normatively tendentious).
There is, nevertheless, an element of arbitrariness in the University’s action. Not because they have treated the Democratic club differently from the Republican club, but because the Democratic club has explicitly included in its constitution the positions that the University regards as required by its Christian mission. To return to Hines’s letter:
Even though this club may not support the more radical planks of the democratic party, the democratic party is still the parent organization of the club on campus. The Democratic Party Platform is contrary to the mission of LU and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, Hate Crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc). The candidates this club supports uphold the Platform and implement it. The candidates supported are directly contrary to the mission of LU. By using LU or Liberty University and Democrat in the name, the two are associated and the goals of both run in opposite directions.
The passage is not entirely coherent, but the gist is clear. The very name “Liberty University College Democrats” forges a link between the University and the Party, a link which is reinforced by the club’s use of the University’s logo, colors, and so forth. The taint of that link is so great that it cannot be mitigated by any disclaimer the College Democrats might offer.
Forget Liberty University and its peculiar mission for a moment. Try to imagine cases where their position would be plausible. No university would want to appear to endorse genocide: a KKK chapter, even if it disavowed the aims of the national organization, could reasonably be denied support because the association of the university with white supremacism is odious enough to overwhelm any mitigation a disavowal could provide.
Liberty University’s view, then, is that association with the national Democratic party, or more precisely with an organization espousing the positions it finds odious, tinctures it with so great a taint that even at second hand no association can be tolerated.
That is the issue. People seem to want a more sensible basis on which to argue. There isn’t one, not here.
Update: The university has agreed to allow the Campus Democrats to be an “unofficial” club. They can use the University’s name and logo, but they must make it clear that they are not endorsed by the University. The College Republicans will be subject to the same condition. See Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, CNN, and
“We decided to go ahead and implement (the policy) as of today,” Falwell said Monday. “The (College) Republicans have been removed from official status and been moved to the new unofficial status that we just created.” […]
“We just decided, with our religious mission, it’s going to be a nightmare to try to figure out which candidates are in-line with our school’s mission and which ones aren’t. And we feel obligated to take the same approach with the Republican club as we do with the Democrat club.”
Christa Desrets, “Liberty University implements new political club policy”, Lynchburg News & Advance 22 Jun 2009

LinkMay 30, 2009

Next »

We read stuff

Current Affairs ·· More from May 2009
War
That Iraq thing is just not working out. Obama wants his own war. The situation in Pakistan is a mortal threat to our security. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, we win yet more hearts and minds, thirty at a time. The future looks bright with our new general.
They torture, we interrogate.
“CIA Torture Program Architect Was Unqualified”. Somehow this doesn’t surprise me. Everybody was either incompetent or corrupt.
Finance
Not everybody was a fool when it came to deregulating the banks.
The pension fund scandal in New York ought to make David Broder happy: it’s a bipartisan effort.
Banks fail stress tests, win lots more money.
We’re having trouble selling bonds.
Climate
For a planet in peril, what could be better than a tepid compromise?
Say goodbye to the Carteret Islands.
Morgenrot
Art
Goths galore at Disneyland.
Mother’s a bit tipsy.
“Morgenrot” by Haushka.
Neither death nor taxes
High-speed rail from Vancouver to San Diego!
Will we still need books? Egghead says yes.
Fox’s audience is aging. This would be funnier if I was younger.
What to learn if you want to become a physicist, and what to read.
Calculus book funds fancy house, concert hall.

LinkMay 25, 2009

Next »

We read stuff

Current Affairs ·· More from May 2009
Don’t worry: earnings are better than expected. Nothing but blue skies ahead.
Plus ça change
Obama’s new guy in Afghanistan set up a torture camp in Iraq. He denied access to the Red Cross. He was in charge of Iraq’s version of the Phoenix program, the purpose of which was the covert killing of people regarded as “insurgents”. He was part of the coverup of Pat Tillman’s death.
The opium trade in Afganistan is flourishing again. For some reason, Karzai’s brother wants to keep this good news secret.
You get the feeling that other than blowing things up and torturing people, the US Army hasn’t had much to do lately. But they are good at blowing things up.
Of course it doesn’t help that the people in charge don’t have a plan. (“Firing the field commander” is not a plan. It is, however, one of the Stages of Failed Foreign Interventions. In Pakistan, we are still on one of the early steps, roughly the Diem stage, supporting—or coercing—the government in its attempts to eradicate “militants”.)
Even more change
Obama’s new head of the DoJ Environment and Natural Resources Division is a lawyer for GE.
The chairman of the NY Fed, who has now resigned, had an interest in Goldman Sachs. It paid off: the 37,300 shares he bought in December have increased in value by $1.7 million.
Some see a problem. But I thought that abusing offshore tax havens was of the very essence of free trade.
Not corrupt
Joanna Lumley goes to bat for the Gurkhas.
The NYT goes to Toronto. Strange how every town looks like every other town in articles like this.

LinkMay 18, 2009

Next »

Lectiones

Current Affairs ·· More from April 2009
Roviana
Torture
  • Churchill said “We don’t torture”. It was a big lie then too. Warning: the details are nasty.
  • Jesus was tortured, so God must like torture, so it’s OK. For us to torture them, I mean. The bad guys, I mean.
  • For the “not-me” file. Condi says: “I didn’t authorize torture, I just passed on the orders of those who did”. Maybe she really doesn’t understand that this doesn’t help.
  • Nice idea: the US should exhibit contrition for its crimes.
New makeup
  • On the bright side, I think this may help to drive the word “rebranding” out of polite discourse.
War
  • Smarts and local knowledge win again over “superior firepower”. Plus: hearts and minds revisited. (This is one of the seven stages of failed foreign intervention. Next stage: our honor requires us to kill more people before we leave.)
Disease
  • Let not the flu of swine enter thy body, saith the Lord. But with the Mexican thou mayst consort.
  • Key phrases: “Ponzified risk management” … “exchanging pathogens at blinding velocity”.
  • Pig earth revisited (Missouri is no. 6 in hog production).
Banks and other robbers
  • Chrysler’s fate is in the hands of hedge funds. This is like having an undertaker in charge of your health.
  • Congress and Geithner are wholly owned subsidiaries of the banks.
  • In Sweden, on the other hand, the government owned the banks. But of course they’re socialists. The country must be run by women (see the last item below).
It’s not a recession. The economy’s just taking a little nap
Dirt
Feelings all the way down
  • Fish feel pain. So do crabs. Another step on the path to panpsychism.
Treats from the Cato Institute
  • Silly women don’t understand that libertarianism is good for them.

    • LinkMay 1, 2009

    Next »

    The Idea meets Twitter

    Current Affairs · Literature ·· More from April 2009
    Auth
    The last MLA, as always far in advance of the leading wave, had a panel on Twitter. Novelties included Tweets from the audience.
    Tweets have a 140-character limit. So twittering counts as “writing under constraint”. As constraints go, it’s on the vanilla side.
    I’m bemused by the attention given to Twitter and “twittering”. Twitter is just an enormous chat room in which you can chatter just to yourself if you like.
    Revolutions are not made of this.
    Or this.
    hat tipBitch Ph. D.

    LinkApril 23, 2009

    Next »

    Looking forward

    Current Affairs · Ethics ·· More from April 2009
    The so-called “torture memos” released this week show that not only were prisoners in the hands of the CIA tortured again and again, but that their treatment and the issue of its legality was carefully thought through. No-one was acting out of anger or in haste—no “ticking bombs” here—; everyone made sure their acts were authorized.
    Obama and his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have reassured those CIA personnel, including doctors and psychologists, who “carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice” that they “will not be subject to prosecution”—even though the US government seems to be obliged by treaty to prosecute violations of the Geneva Conventions and of the Convention against Torture whenever they occur, and whoever commits them.
    The canard of the day is that we should look forward, not backward.
    This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.
    This is misleading and base. Misleading because the punishment of wrongdoing isn’t just “laying blame”. It’s doing justice, it’s an attempt to make public the crimes performed by the state and to expose the criminals who performed them, with the hope that no-one will be tempted to perform them again. It’s about the future: Never again should these things happen.
    It’s base because Obama is turning an issue of justice into an issue of unity, and including those who urge the prosecution of war criminals among the “forces that divide us”. Instead we are supposed to unite around “core values” (whenever anyone talks about “core values”, look for the lie). Until now I would have thought that those values preclude torture and that they oblige us to punish those who perform or order others to perform it. The confidence Obama asks for is a confidence based on lies. We’ve been there before.
    In addition to the sites linked to above, see Emptywheel, Talk Left, and Glenn Greenwald for more on torture and the legal issues raised by the acts of the Bush and now the Obama administrations.
    I wrote about the legal memos in 2004. It was obvious then that the memos were not about whether or not torture is illegal under US and international law; they were about making it as difficult as possible for anyone to be prosecuted for whatever acts they performed. People who claim to be shocked only now were either not paying attention or deliberately ignoring the warning signs.

    LinkApril 20, 2009

    Next »

    Mrs. Miller

    Current Affairs · Music ·· More from April 2009
    Mrs. Miller
    Susan Boyle is not the first middle-aged woman whose voice has made her famous overnight. People of a certain age will remember another middle-aged woman who had an unexpected career as a singer: Mrs. Miller.
    Mrs. Miller’s fame owed something to the same Camp æsthetic that helped promote Tiny Tim and the TV series Batman: from whatever sophisticated beginnings (see Sontag’s “Notes on Camp”), it became largely a matter of “so bad it’s good”. Mrs. Miller, unlike Susan Boyle, had what you might call an unusual voice, with so much vibrato as to moot the question of her being on pitch. Her rhythm was also uncertain. Nevertheless her recording of “Downtown” (Petula Clark’s big hit) was a success, and her first album, Mrs. Miller’s Greatest Hits sold 250,000 copies in 1966. Eighteen months after her career began, she ended it after her husband passed away. In 1997 she too passed away at ninety after having survived the collapse of her apartment building during the Northridge Earthquake.
    You can see her singing “Inka Dinka Doo” with Jimmy Durante on the Hollywood Palace. He certainly knew how to deliver a line: what timing! That stop-and-go delivery was part of his act, just like the nose and hat.

    LinkApril 20, 2009

    Next »
    Main