[Glice]

Counts of that word in this thread: Pookie, 2; Bradders, 1; Ned, 1; Glice, 1.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i do think that legions of academics in recent decades have indulged in excesses brought about by the mindless following of intellectual fashions, and thus lost a good amount of influence and relevance in society at large.

i'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater though. I know in spite of the overabundance of shit disciplines there is some great work happening in places, necessary work, important work, which unfortunately is being obscured by the charlatans.

But surely part of that is a question of perspective - there are quantitatively more people working in academia today, that's for certain. I don't think they in any way obscure the good people. No-one's actually named a single pointless, workaday, sheepish academic so far (I'll name one: John Fiske) because we simply don't remember them. The references have always been to the 'big guns', because it's just not in anyone's interest to remember the silent herd of feckless shites. Lacan might have been widely misinterpreted, but we're trying to get at him, not his inadvertent detractors.

Similarly, we don't know much about the contemporaries of Hegel, Kant, Descartes, Gallileo, Newton and so forth simply because history has decided to ignore them. I'm in the process of writing an essay on one of the more obscure Patristic fathers, so I've read a lot of the characters that aren't Chrystostum, Origen, Clement and so on. The reason there's not a great deal of writing on the incidental characters (who are the equivalent of our modern landfill academics) is because it's simply better covered, more clearly, elsewhere.

So I suppose I'd say that if the restriction of humanities does lead to a redressing of the humanities' purpose - the academic reform Bowels and Rail mentioned - that'd definitely be a good thing; however, if this reform means that the humanities is forced into reducing itself to narrow (or 'properly') economic terms, or forced into making 'plain sense' writing, then that would reduce what merit it does have. Everyone is familiar (whether they know it or not) with ideas like Descartes' Cogito or Plato's Cave - but if you return to the original texts, there's very little in the way of 'simple writing'. Plato I continue to find excruciating, and possibly always will, and Descartes I found incredibly hard work (but rewarding once I got there).

[Lurker]

Schopenhauer's view of Hegel, my view of Lacan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_...r_versus_Hegel


As he points out, the success of these "thinkers" is down to their obscurantism (I haven't read any Hegel so can't give an opinion on him). The people who are honest enough to admit this realise the damage these sort of academics have done, and realise why people might consider the humanities as pretentious and pointless.

[Glice]

Lacan and Hegel aren't the best writers; does that invalidate their point?

People don't think the humanities is pretentious and pointless because of Lacan and Hegel. I'd be very surprised if anyone who says that has bothered with the Phenomenology of Spirit.

It's not a matter of 'honesty' or otherwise that I have read Lacan and feel like he's made sense to me. The problem if that you're being made to feel bad because you didn't get it when it occupies such a central position in critical theory. Lacan is important, but no-one's important enough to be ubiquitous.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Glice

Lacan and Hegel aren't the best writers; does that invalidate their point?

People don't think the humanities is pretentious and pointless because of Lacan and Hegel. I'd be very surprised if anyone who says that has bothered with the Phenomenology of Spirit.

It's not a matter of 'honesty' or otherwise that I have read Lacan and feel like he's made sense to me. The problem if that you're being made to feel bad because you didn't get it when it occupies such a central position in critical theory. Lacan is important, but no-one's important enough to be ubiquitous.

Ok, that's an exaggeration. But even I have thought at times, whilst doing my degree, that literary criticism has become pointless (incorrectly) because of similar problems. The admiration for, and (pretended) use of, the work of people like Lacan, Derrida, etc is part of the problem.

I would say so. Dishonest academics are the reason why people like him are popular. It's same kind of dishonesty that most religious people have to maintain for their comforting beliefs to survive.
I don't feel bad for not getting it! There's plenty of other, actually difficult, rather than obscurantist, which I read and take pleasure in, and there many things that I recognise as being just too difficult for me, and don't really mind that.

[Glice]

What's the difference between difficult and obscurantist? I shudder whenever anyone mentions Derrida, precisely because he's so widely misunderstood. In himself, his work is often very difficult, but that difficulty is entirely necessary, and utterly on point. If you try and re-write Derrida's points in simpler words, you just end up writing more than he did. But the minute he's dismissed as 'obscurantist' I immediately feel that whoever's saying that hasn't really given him a bash in good faith.

You're right about dishonest academics, but... well, it's your call whether or not you join them really. If you can see through a bad academic - or endemic bad academics - there's no reason you have to be a part of that. I know some astonishingly sharp (published) academics and some utter turds. I cling to the good ones, ignore the bad ones. I suppose the only problem is finding the good ones - which is where your own critical faculties come in, I suppose.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Then I don't see how your historical perspective implicates critical theory in any exceptional manner. Socrates decried sophistry for many of the same points but the philosophers who were included under it have been valuable. What makes this a develop of "recent decades" rather than a common and necessary trait? You mention intellectualism being a result of wealth so does intellectualism always bring it upon itself during impoverished times by simply being itself?

sophists actually provided a services to their patrons. they commanded large fees. i think their condemnation by socraplato was different from what i'm talking about here.

look,the intellect is the faculty of the human brain, and anyone can "philosophize" over some beers, but only freedom from labor allows a social class to devote themselves to intellectual pursuits-- is that too hard to comprehend? go try being a philosopher while making a living as a dishwasher, without external means of support-- i dare you. do it as an experiment, say, for 6 months, and when you finally realize how the real world works apply to law school and use your philosophical training to make a decent living. seriously.

i'd say "go be a philospher" but there's a current need for culling-- not exctinction, just culling-- bad times-- and you probably would need to make it to a top-level school if you're going to stand the faintest of chances of ever getting a tenured position. you could try for adjunct-for-life, but it's a painful and miserable road.

Originally Posted by pbradley

You speak of patrons but you don't know who they are so I don't know how this is relevant. What patrons? I was under the impression that universities funded their departments from tuition and the like rather than wealthy private interests. Could you explain to me the role of patronage in contemporary the university system?

jeezus man, your impression is WRONG. universities depend either on huge endowments or state funds to keep going. why do you think there's a rich person's name above the door every time a new pavillion/laboratory/auditorium/sports complex gets built? do you have any idea of the massive private wealth that supports institutions like harvard, yale (which owns like half of new haven), and other top schools? tuition schmision! hasn't your school hit you up for donations yet, recent graduate? by "i don't know who they may be" i mean, shit, state governments, federal grants, the pentagon, rich fuckers looking to leave a "legacy" (aka "philantropists"), megacorporations ("this is a pepsi campus"), armies of devoted alumni, etc-- the list is too fucking long for me to investigate and list each particular case, but there's a general outline for you. in europe and latin america it's been mostly a govenrment thing, i believe, hence depending on taxes, though there ARE private universities.

anyway, your assumptions are hopelessly naive. best luck.

[space]

y'all missed mah tit.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

sophists actually provided a services to their patrons. they commanded large fees. i think their condemnation by socraplato was different from what i'm talking about here.

look,the intellect is the faculty of the human brain, but only freedom from labor allows a social class to devote themselves to intellectual pursuits-- is that too hard to comprehend? go try being a philosopher while working as a dishwasher-- i dare you. do it as an experiment, and when you finally realize how the real world works apply to law school and use your philosophical training to make a decent living. seriously.

i'd say "go be a philospher" but there's a current need for culling-- not exctinction, just culling-- bad times-- and you probably would need to make it to a top-level school if you're goint to stand the faintest of chances of ever getting a tenured position. you could try for adjunct-for-life, but it's a painful and miserable road.



jeezus man, your impression is WRONG. universities depend either on huge endowments or state funds to keep going. why do you think there's a rich person's name above the door every time a new pavillion/laboratory/auditorium/sports complex gets built? do you have any idea of the massive private wealth that supports institutions like harvard, yale (which owns like half of new haven), and other top schools? tuition schmision! hasn't your school hit you up for donations yet, recent graduate? by "i don't know who they may be" i mean, shit, state governments, federal grants, the pentagon, rich fuckers looking to leave a "legacy" (aka "philantropists"), megacorporations ("this is a pepsi campus"), armies of devoted alumni, etc-- the list is too fucking long for me to investigate and list each particular case, but there's a general outline for you. in europe and latin america it's been mostly a govenrment thing, i believe, hence depending on taxes, though there ARE private universities.

anyway, your assumptions are hopelessly naive. best luck.

I generally agree with a lot of this. Except for:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

go try being a philosopher while working as a dishwasher-- i dare you. do it as an experiment, and when you finally realize how the real world works apply to law school and use your philosophical training to make a decent living. seriously.

That's really patronising. I actually did some dishwashing while studying philosophy, and it never made me want to be a lawyer. Studying philosophy is really, really good for making a person not care too much about abject poverty. In my experience, at least.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by space

y'all missed mah tit.

jah be praised-- or something

[Glice]

Originally Posted by space

y'all missed mah tit.

I saw it.

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

I generally agree with a lot of this. Except for:


That's really patronising. I actually did some dishwashing while studying philosophy, and it never made me want to be a lawyer. Studying philosophy is really, really good for making a person not care too much about abject poverty. In my experience, at least.

not studying while doing some dishwashing, tits, anybody gets a job in college duh.

i mean, wash dishes full time, for a living. or construction work. 8 hours a day plus commute, supporting yourself solely on it. TRY IT and we'll talk.

i tried something similar-- after a day of mixing cement under a baking sun i had no energy left except to eat, drink beer, fuck, and sleep. well, i could read a little, mostly weekends.

but go try it yourself. i promise it will at least be an adventure.

[!@#$%!]

ps- oh, spice girl, that was you answering, sorry, i failed to recognize that donkey signature and i thought you were the person i was addressing in my post. (i should have recognized he'd never say "i agree with this a lot"-- apologies). anyway, pbradders actually enjoys some lawyering, or so i've read him say.

i know you don't wanna be a lawyer-- you plan to be the pope some day and let the children come to you. uh-huh.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

not studying while doing some dishwashing, tits, anybody gets a job in college duh.

i mean, wash dishes full time, for a living. or construction work. 8 hours a day plus commute, supporting yourself solely on it. TRY IT and we'll talk.

i tried something similar-- after a day of mixing cement under a baking sun i had no energy left except to eat, drink beer, sleep and fuck.

but go try it yourself. i promise it will at least be an adventure.

Right, sorry - I worked for 2 months as a labourer, moving bricks around. I did 3 months of factory work. I've worked in bars, on and off, for many years (up until a few years ago). I've done 3 months of door-to-door salesman work. I've lived off of temporary work for over 3 years. What's your point? People should do shit jobs? I've done shit jobs. They were shit. I've done better-paid jobs. They were also shit.

Now that I've said that I've had shit jobs, I still think your point is patronising. Moreso because you're assuming I'm someone who's floated about like some foppish dilettante.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Glice

...you're assuming I'm someone who's floated about like some foppish dilettante.

You mean you're not? Don't shatter the illusion you foppish dilettante.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

Right, sorry - I worked for 2 months as a labourer, moving bricks around. I did 3 months of factory work. I've worked in bars, on and off, for many years (up until a few years ago). I've done 3 months of door-to-door salesman work. I've lived off of temporary work for over 3 years. What's your point? People should do shit jobs? I've done shit jobs. They were shit. I've done better-paid jobs. They were also shit.

Now that I've said that I've had shit jobs, I still think your point is patronising. Moreso because you're assuming I'm someone who's floated about like some foppish dilettante.

read my post above, non-pbradders. i was answering as if you were him. i know you've slept in flea-ridden couches.

my point was that living off shit jobs really cramps your philosophy work, you foppish dilettante.

unless you live in a barrel and alexander offers you anything you want. good luck with that.

[Glice]

I know what your point was. I'm just point out you're wrong. And you smell. And your face is so small that shrews laugh at you behind your back.

I think anyone who thinks of themselves as a philosopher but can't do a shit job really lacks... well, everything.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

And you smell.

get your nose out of under my ballsac and breathe, silly.

Originally Posted by Glice

shrews laugh at you behind your back

i know-- i can hear you

but lacan was never a full-time bricklayer.

and wittgenstein wanted to be a laborer and failed.

socrates was merely a bad sculptor-- doesn't count as hard labor

plato had slaves

hegel was a university prof

engels had daddy's money

the question anyway is NOT if you can do hard labor, anyone reasonably healthy can. the question is if you can perform full-time hard labor, depend on it for your subsistence, AND do serious intellectual work at the same time.

[Lurker]

Dishwashing - check

Manual labour - UNCOMPLETED

Philosophising - UNCOMPLETED

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

look,the intellect is the faculty of the human brain, and anyone can "philosophize" over some beers, but only freedom from labor allows a social class to devote themselves to intellectual pursuits-- is that too hard to comprehend?

What the hell are you talking about? I already admitted that point posts ago. What does any of this have to do with me? Are you tired? I'm trying to reconcile what seems like two contradictory points: intellectual pursuits are always sacrificed in times like these and the critical theorists brought this upon themselves. I can see how the latter is presumed in the former but then I can hardly see how the latter is interesting or significant in any attempt to understanding the cause of these cutbacks. Your historical perspective undercuts all this re-invention talk. It would be so convenient yet pointless if the humanities were something other than the humanities.