RE: RE: writ large, another sip

You seem to have forgotten your previous post. I wasn't asking for examples
of "reason-less" intellectuals, but in your previous post you seemed to be
positing "non-intellectual" criticism, or criticism from
"non-intellectuals," that didn't emphasize reason.
Jim

I guess I don't know what you're specifically talking about. Maybe a quote
from the previous post.
Daniel

I'm not arguing for the place of "reason" here, but you seemed to be
identifying reason with "intellectuals" alone (which I think is a mistake --
critical theory itself developed a criticism of Enlightenment reason).
Jim

No I am not, go back and read my posts with that in mind. I think (not
being sarcastic) that you are reading your own paradigms into what I am
saying.
Daniel

What external validation or falsification applies here, though? You screw
up a bridge calculation and the bridge collapses. If you make a mistake in
social criticism...what? Other people will certainly disagree with you.
Hopefully the policy makers aren't paying attention.
Jim

That is my point, thank you. Yet those in the essay see some sort of
consequences, it may be all muddled but their world is not free floating it
is probing a connection with the rest of us. The social critic could use
some of that, at least the ones currently immune from consequences.
Daniel

I think you're mistaken to identify intellectual currents, primarily, as a
series of "fads," although fads do come and go, there are always a lot of
people doing the basic work of the historian...
Jim

Good, if some one is just Journalizing Literature, ok, but there is much
more than that going on. I am not saying that the 'much more' shouldn't
happen, it just shouldn't happen in its own vacuum.
Daniel

Yep, I see stuff like this. It's HUMAN, Daniel. Happens in all walks of
life. Doesn't matter if it's electricians arguing about the best way to run
pipe or "intellectuals" arguing about evolution theory or rock mechanics,
people get snitty sometimes. So this doesn't really support your assertion,
though.

I don't understand why you're drawing examples from the sciences here, when
near the end of your post you seemed to think people in the sciences were
more exempt from your criticism because they subjected themselves to
"external verification."
Jim

Yes of course it is human, and it happens in all walks of life that is why I
didn't define intellectuals exclusively to Literary critics or philosophers
they are just more prone. Dawkins and Gould aren't practicing science
exclusively they are hawking naturalism, hence the break with accountable
science. Some scientists are afraid of saying 'I don't know' or 'that is
not in the purview of science'.
Daniel

Yep, your professor sounds like she was a class A moron. I think you got
the shaft in that situation. Now, the questions I have to ask are...how
representative is she of English profs. in your previous institution, how
representative is she of English profs. across the US, and how do you know?
Jim

This is common grist for the mill. Just about every one I know who has
attended a college course has had this sort of experience. Yes, this is
human, but the explanations are often rationalizations and the 'victim' has
to swallow it because of the authority of the grader with the veneer of
reason. This sort of thing goes on in academia, where papers are based on
the same sort of 'reasoning'.
Daniel

I don't think you'd have had the same experience where I am teaching now.
But then, we don't offer technical writing, either.
Jim

I am glad to hear it.
Daniel

See, this example could go either way. Papers aren't just graded on how
well they are written, but on how well they fulfill an assignment. It
sounds like you have another good example of a bonehead professor, but this
one isn't as cut and dried to me. I'd need to know more.
Jim

That is the point, the professor insisted on a class specific definition
that my friend ignored that resulted in a poor grade, ok, my friend
proceeded with that definition throughout the course. Now the professor
neglects his own definition in the final exam, that is why the paper was
independently re-graded. The initial professor couldn't or wouldn't see the
problem. Notice, that the rest of the department saw the problem but the
offending professor is the only one used as an example not the whole
department.
Daniel

Furthermore, it's not clear how these two examples reflect arrogance on the
part of the professor or an assumption of his/her superiority.
Jim

The superiority was manifested in the failure to address a grievance
reasonably. They may have believed in their positions but their positions
didn't make sense. I don't know their motives but there were consequences,
but not to the ones who failed in judgment. Their very positions identified
them as educated people, but it appears that intellect was not enough.
Daniel

That's just it, Daniel. The terms aren't clear. What's an intellectual,
then? It sounds as if John O. is right -- you define the word intellectual
by these bad characteristics, then proceed to say that intellectuals all
have these bad characteristics. You may be talking in circles.
Jim

I am not against discarding the term intellectual, I am more interested in
the phenomena reflected in the assumption that if someone uses or claims to
use reason they have a defacto superior position. Academics get involved
because people assume that they have the most developed reasoning skills
(critical thinking), and I am pointing out that neither of these are good
assumptions. Also, a consequence to these assumptions is resistance to any
external righting mechanism/system. You can peer review but if the review
process is broken then you won't know if you are getting valid results. I
am saying that I suspect your 'system' is broken. I think that is what the
essay was sort of about or at least those attending the meeting saw
something as being broken.
Daniel

No, engineers can be real jerkwads about their designs -- again, I worked as
an electrician and had to translate blueprints into a real world building.
It wasn't uncommon that the engineer would plan 38" of ductwork, electrical,
and plumbing in 30" of space and wonder just what the heck was wrong with
us. Many of them were real asses about it. Others draw plans with a
beautiful disregard for the electrical codes we all need to follow in the
real world, then wonder where all these backcharges are coming from.
Jim

That is exactly my point, they had you or other craftsman to point out the
failures in their work. The good engineer will pay attention the bad one
will be ignored (hopefully). But there is real external criticism
(craftsmen will gladly tell you they aren't engineers). Yea, we engineers
are asses but our work is measurable. It is ok to 'brain storm' but don't
sell it as anything other than that.
Daniel

What external criticism, again, are you talking about? External to the
field? No, engineers are usually not willing to take criticism from people
who aren't engineers about their own work, and doctors generally think they
know more about what's good for their patients than the patients themselves
do. I don't blame them for this, but I don't understand, then, what
external criticism you're talking about.
Jim

The best engineers work with craftsmen, owners, architects, community
planners, interior designers, government entities and accomplish things
together checking and balancing each other. I think philosophers can too
but they have to be much more careful about it since they don't often have
team members to give them that guiding kick. An example (shoot away John
O.), it appears to me that philosophy of the past 200 years or so bases much
of its 'conclusions' on Descartes old argument from self existence and now
many Philosophers have reduced it all back to self existence. They went the
long way around the mulberry bush. Ok, fine that line of reasoning helped
some by going through the process but it all reasoned back to its start, one
big circle. Yet, many who study philosophy don't see this. Maybe they are
to close or maybe I have missed something but insert Scottie's elephant
here. They need to look for ways to check it. If they are making fiction
or poetry, ok that is what it is but if they are making claims of truth,
well that includes everyone, it is not their personal property anymore.
Daniel

Show me examples. Most "intellectuals" hold to some form of ontological or
moral relativism and tend to be anti-dogmatic. I'm not saying this doesn't
happen, but I am saying it's a mistake to characterize an entire group of
people this way.
Jim

I am not saying every single academician is dogmatic but you do have a
problem that needs cleaning. The engineers in my organization are pretty
heartless to fellow 'slacking' engineers. Hell, you could lose your license
and be drummed out of the profession if your not careful enough.
Daniel

Ok, but who is defining them in that way? Do they self identify as
"intellectuals," or is that a libel others place on them? I would argue
that most of the time it's the latter -- in which case, you're only saying
that the fact these people are criticized means the criticism is true. And
that, of course, is nonsense.
Jim

Your right if they didn't call themselves that, but some do if only
secretly. But regardless of labels, some equate their value in life with
how smart they are. They maybe related but often not. Idiots say the
dumbest things but intelligent people are not immune either. I guess the
circle must be broken, don't fear the reaper and all that. Get everything
out in the open, and let us all bring what we got to the table. You would
be surprised, ok, Jim you might not be but many out there would.
Daniel

Ok...show me examples of these claims to superiority. The examples you
provided were of narrowness of outlook, but not necessarily to superiority.
Jim

I could give examples, but the point is gold is where gold is not
necessarily where the mines are.
Daniel

The essay was a glib dismissal of the work of "intellectuals," not a step in
any direction.
Jim

I would gladly consider any work that is willing to be considered. If the
work is only considerable by a narrow group then how can I ever dismiss it,
much less glibly? Of course I do consider it and dismiss some of it and
there lies the rub.
Daniel
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Apr 29 20:08:51 2003