While strolling through the hallway of a building that houses my university's sociology department, I overheard the following incredible remark:
The problem with Nozick's view of justice is that it's ahistorical.
I stopped and confirmed that I hadn't misheard the claim. I hadn't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
What were you doing in a sociology department?
I hope that the rest of this post will soon be posted under the general heading of Public Philosophy.
My friend once foolishly entered into an argument (at a grad student philosophy conference) with a young philosopher who claimed that Rawls was a utilitarian. I hung back and angled for more free food.
PG: I was taking a short-cut through a building that happens to house Sociology. Big mistake. Will never do again.
Clayton: I was in a rush, and think that sociologists are irremediable anyway, so no deeper story to tell.
Anon: Goes to show the (at best) uselessness of grad student philo conferences.
But Spiro, anon 2:04 said there was free food involved, so how could the grad student conference be useless? At least when you're a grad student, no source of free food is useless.
Matt:
If in order to eat you have to listen to a paper about Rawls's utilitarianism, could the food be truly free? Exposure to stupidity is costly...
Anon 2:04 here:
The paper wasn't on Rawls: this was just a conversation, and we couldn't shake him of the belief that Rawls was a utilitarian. However, there was free food, and later free drinks, so it's hard to say it was useless.
P.S. Is grading freshmen papers on Plato in order to eat really any different than listening to stupidity at conferences in order to eat?
You were lucky you weren't drinking anything at the time, since it surely would have shot directly out of your nose.
I'm pretty sure that correctly construed the claim might be false but not as silly as you think. What the sociologist meant by 'ahistorical' is that Nozick was trying to defend principles of justice that apply timelessly and in a context free manner. The implication is that a correct theory of justice is sensitive to these things, which probably entails some kind of relativism. So they weren't 'ahistorical' as the antonym of 'historical' as a term of art in Nozick's account.
Nozick's theory is ahistorical in the further sense that it is extremely difficult to apply given the actual history of the world as it has been up to this point (as distinct from Neil's 12:13 sense of ahistorical). It's just not really the sort of theory that someone with a deep sense of the immense scope of the injustices of history would have developed as a theory meant to be of use to us.
I'm trying to think what someone in sociology may have meant by the term, and that's about as near as I can get. So I don't think this is a crazy thing for someone to say, just unfortunate given the meaning of "historical" within Nozick's view.
Ironic, isn't it?
I suppose a very charitable, but still stupid, reading of the Nozick comment was that the dummy was trying to apply Hume's critique of social contract theory... as I said, that would still be dumb, but not quite as dumb as thinking Rawls is a utilitarian.
I've known undergrads in freshman-level classes to make the latter mistake, but at any higher level that's really grounds for summary mercy-killing.
Meh, ok, it would be almost as dumb. Pretty close to as dumb. Ok, as dumb. That's my attempt to be charitable for the week, and look how long it lasted. Less than a minute.
Neil and Anon 8:34:
Suppose your charitable renderings are true. That would warrant the claim that Nozick's theory of justice is *insufficiently* historical, not that it's *ahistorical*. There's no non-silly way to read the claim that the ET is ahistorical.
Berkeley: materialist.
Hume: rationalist.
Frege: afraid of abstract entities.
Kant: his ethics is just too empirical.
Leibniz: too many goddamn windows in those monads.
Actually no, Spiros. The way 'ahistorical' is used in the humanities (I'm guessing this sociologist is influenced by critical theory types) is more or less equivalent to 'blind to the theoreticians historical context', where 'historical context' is understood in a Marxian or Hegelian way; ie, the claim is that the theoretician is not reflecting on the extent to which their ideas are a product of their situatedness. I don't think this is an incoherent notion. And I do think it is coherently applied as an absolute, as in 'the problem with X is that s/he's ahistorical'.
I'm not sure. I tend to think that "massively oblivious to the fact that our historical context renders his theory entirely useless" is a reasonably permissible meaning for "ahistorical" in a corridor in Sociology sort of situation.
Of course, what the person might have meant is that Nozick had a patterned conception of justice. You might have to track the person down and bring them here to explain what they meant.
On Rawls and utilitarianism. Suppose that someone was relatively new to philosophy — and the only thing of Rawls that he/she had read was "Two Concepts of Rules." Rawls does not of course say anything in that paper that commits him to utilitarianism. But one might get the impression that Rawls is a utilitarian from the fact that the paper is, while making a general point about justification and practices, focused on defending utilitarianism against a certain criticism.
We were all once strangers in the land of Canaan. Let's not be dicks about it.
Anon 10:13-
In fact, this dude (Rawls is util.) was ABD, and he has become the template for a person my friends and I refer to as 'the philosophical douche.' (And not just for the Rawls opinion: it would take an essay to explain, mostly by example, how this dude was the Platonic form of Douche) You meet them at every conference, and they thrive in certain departments, and we've made it our goal (at our M.A. department, which we're now all leaving, taking the gospel to the Gentiles) to take the douche out of philosophy.
So, far from being dicks, we're taking out the douche.
re 2:28 and 3:43
Grad student conferences are great! When I was a graduate student, I went to many, and I met many philosophers who of course I still know (because I see them at conferences). I also got valuable practice at giving talks, and some good feedback on my work.
For some people it's also valuable in that it provides an opportunity to practice asking questions at talks (which I did anyway in my dept colloquia but some grad students are too shy).
Furthermore, it was worth discovering one or two interesting philosophers I didn't already know, even if I had to listen to many more papers, many of which were not good, to hear the gems.
Anonymous 11:16
You can't use a phrase like "Platonic form of douche" without some explanation of the hierarchy of douchebaggery, that is the hierarchy that extends from the relatively non-douchy participants in this forum all the way up to the Rawls-utilitarian guy.
This is important stuff, and you're leaving us hanging here. It's like Socrates near the end of the Symposium just walked off into another room with Alcibides. Come on, we're all philosophers here. We want to know all about the form of douche.
Neil and 8:34:
So, then, in declaring that the problem with Nozick's view is that it's ahistorical, the sociologist was simply asserting that Nozick's view is inconsistent with Marxist/Crit Theory views of (the significance of) history. Hardly an insight, let alone a criticism, and I still say it's silly.
It's like saying:
"The problem wit Kant's ethics is that it doesn't recognize the Greatest Happiness Principle as the supreme principle of morality." Well, duh.
Yeah, that's more or less right. I still want to go easy on the claim, first because it is so widespread in theory land that it is hard for these folks to see it as debatable, second and more importantly because it is one of the few defensible parts of 'theory' - defensible, just in the sense that it is both interesting and not obviously false. I have a soft spot for Marxism (of which this is the last remnant in theory-land): I would like it to be true.
Spiros 5:43, that may be the case on Neil's interpretation but not on mine. My interpretation just supposes that there is an assumption that theories of justice should guide us in some manner in the real world, and then the objection that Nozick's doesn't since its import is basically nullified by the massive injustices of our history.
This is a reasonable enough assumption and objection, and hardly one that presupposes any Marxist/Critical Theory point of view.
Again, who knows if this is what the person had in mind, but I don't think it is a silly view at all, and I can imagine someone using the term "ahistorical" to express it, perhaps infelicitously.
Prof. Cogburn,
You are of course correct, and I can assure you that our metaphysics of the Douche is quite medieval, and ranges from horrific instances in which I participate in the form, to beings approaching the form. But to fully explain here would hijack this thread, which is douchey. One reason I like this blog is that many here seem to have an intuitive grasp of douchbaggery. For example, there was a thread recently about poor colloquium behavior, which I found pretty much on time. One sure sign of the Douche is a question longer than the answer, in which off-point stories which are presumably intended to be counter-examples are told, in a tone of voice sometimes approaching whimsy (look at me! where do I come up with these?! I love philosophy!).
Of course, I'm epistemically limited, so I'm sure others have insights into the Douche that I've missed.
Indeed, anon 11:44, at least a few have considered the Form of the Douche and I will gladly weigh in on the matter.
It is important to recognize that the status of the Form of the Douch is dependent on Doom, which is above even the Forms (Douchebaggery, Asshattery, etc.) in scope, power and awfulness, and can only be explained by way of an analogy: The Simile of the Plant. Just as a plant through the presence of photosynthesis converts CO2 to O2, creating fine and noble conditions for human life, the presence of Doom in the douchebag converts the fine and noble conditions of human life into their opposites, wretched and shallow conditions.
The Ascent to the Form of the Douche, as you have noted, begins in hatred of a particular douche, but soon enough the hater notices a plurality of douchebags, each and every one of which deserves hatred, and sure enough our hater will think any particular douche is of little or no importance, being forced to gaze on the idiocy and destructiveness of institutions and customs. Hence, the hater is turned toward the great sea of douchbaggery, no longer considering the example of a particular douche. If our hater, in disgust and revulsion, persists further, guided on the path of hatred, perhaps the hater will find initiation into the highest mystery, catching sight of something amazingly horrifying in its nature…that which is not a douche in relation to another, douchebaggish at one time but not another, nor here but not there, nor for some people but not others, nor in any guise whatsoever…in the end of this lesson the hater, learning of this Douchebaggery, will truly know what it is to be a Douche.
729,
I think you are right on target. On analogy with Republic V, we should distinguish those who hate all douchebags and the many douchebaggy things from those who hate douchebaggery itself.
Here I will defer to what I surmise is your prowess in Ancient philosophy: is the form of douchebaggery -- that is, Douchebaggery itself -- self-predicating?
Anon of the alternative interpretation: I don't see why Nozick's theory shouldn't guide us. In fact, I think we should start acting on it today; giving the US back to the traditional owners for a start.
What I object to in the attempts to make sense of the sociologist's comment is the suggestion that s/he meant anything intelligible at all.
Neil, the traditional owners, such as they may have been, are long dead. Of course, there are people descended from them who are alive, but I'm not sure how you would figure out what each one of those individuals would have owned had it not been for the injustices of 1492 on (leaving aside the presumed myriad injustices of life in the Americas prior to 1492), particularly since none of those individuals would be in existence had it not been for the injustices of 1492 (etc.).
Reparations for historical injustice may make sense on some models, but I don't know how to make sense of them on a Nozickean model. And then what? We can't undo time, nor can we accept the status quo as a baseline, so I have no idea *at all* what a Nozickean society should look like given our situation in the here and now. A minimal state in the context of an unjust distribution of holdings is no better than an egalitarian state. It doesn't preserve our property rights, it just acquiesces in the brutish robberies of the past.
Glaucon, divine offspring of a renowned man, surely you will achieve great renown yourself, if you survive.
With respect to the matter of the self-predication of the form of the Douche, I would here refer to Vlastos’ view of the form of Beauty in Platonic Studies, 262-63, where he notes that the theory of eros depends on the self-predication of beauty in this particular case from the Symposium. He states: “The thesis that beauty itself is the supremely beautiful thing in existence is meant to epitomize the liberating, energizing, life-transforming wisdom of that doctrine [of Platonic Eros]” (263). I’m incline to go with Vlastos on this because it seems to me that Platonic Misos requires a vision of awfulness that is hated through and through.
On the issue of the haters of douchebags and many douchebaggish things and their difference from haters of douchebaggery itself, the same distinction drawn between the lovers of sights and sounds and true philosophers would have to apply. The true philosopher must hate douchbaggery itself. The love of wisdom and truth, the eros driving the philosopher’s ascent, surely must be accompanied by increasing hatred of foolishness and falsity. Although the full account of The Philosopher was an unfulfilled promise, may we suppose the spirited part of the soul, guided by reason in its hatred of the foolish and false, must certainly be compelled towards refutation, protecting wisdom and truth just as much as reason, in its feminine mode, generates accounts aimed at establishing wisdom and truth?
Anon wrote: a minimal state in the context of an unjust distribution of holdings is no better than an egalitarian state. It doesn't preserve our property rights, it just acquiesces in the brutish robberies of the past.
So far as I can tell, Nozick is committed to agreeing with this claim.
To be fair, it is at least /a/ problem, though /the/ problem seems to be pushing it. You might well be able to point to examples which are similar to Nozick's minimalist utopia in the historical records but which quickly collapse into despotisms.
@Anon: "My friend once foolishly entered into an argument (at a grad student philosophy conference) with a young philosopher who claimed that Rawls was a utilitarian."
The world of competitive debating is a treasure-trove of such things; mainly because those involved find themselves appealing to philosophical terms and sources without ever having formally studied them. Highlights include:
* The continual use and abuse of 'the social contract', most recently wheeled in to justify the claim that the armed forces set the moral standards for society.
* Along the same lines a chap from Cork who listed the three great social contract theorists: Plato, Aristotle and Voltaire. (what?) Curiously enough he insisted on his list despite argument.
* 'Consequentialism' applied to the theory of punishment in the following manner; consequentialism is the view that you should be (retributively) punished for the consequences of your actions. I tried to explain deterrence but was rebuffed as seemingly this fellows law professor's word is... well... law.
I know how to deal with people who hold views I disagree with in philosophy, but it's surprisingly that much harder to cope with people who are just plain wrong. How would you deal with someone who claimed Rawls was utilitarian? Invited them to come with you to the library and get a copy of AToJ?
@Glaucon
You're missing the classic: Kantian Nihilism
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2006/07/18/
Having just attended a talk by a renowned sociologist of science, i can assure you that the inference is generalizable to 'philosophy is ahistorical, anything ahistorical is wrong, silly, rubbish, false, whatever, ergo philosophy is wrong, etc.'
your problem was just overhearing an *instance* of the argument, not staying around for the talk and discussion where you would have heard the generalized version and LOTS more!
Brad
If they meant that Nozick's theory has no possible relevance to planet Earth, they were right.
Post a Comment