The Lady Gaga "Stone"... don't get me started. Seriously: can't we make it stop? Hasn't whatever-his-name-is (the "takes his time" guy) done enough damage to the public image of the profession?
Dear New York Times,
"The Stone" is perhaps the outcome of a good idea. But you got boondoggled by a bunch of amateurs. Please either discontinue it, or put it in the hands of good philosophers.
Two quick things on the NYT Stone series. 1. Bauer's essay, I thought, was good. Well, for an essay on Lady Gaga. But that's the problem, I guess. Anyway, for what it was, I had no problem with it -- "self-objectification" is worth thinking through, and Bauer seemed on the right track. 2. Bernstein has a new piece up responding to critics. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/the-usefulness-of-anger-a-response/
I thought the piece on Gaga did a good job at taking ideas that are not necessarily intuitive and applying them in ways which are understandable to non-philosophers. That is the point of The Stone, is it not? Generally, don't see a problem invoking popular culture in the discussion of philosophy, especially if it more or less comes naturally to oneself. While you obviously don't want to cheapen the philosophy with too much pop culture references, it's a nice way of grabbing people's interest and attention and showing them how philosophy is indeed relevant (sadly, people are woefully uninformed and think it is, by and large, not).
I'm curious what philosophers y'all think would be more appropriate for such a venture (besides Spiros, of course). I think it'd be fun to unleash Roger Scruton on The Stone if for no other reason than the reactions...
The problem with the Lady Gaga piece is that it is about Lady Gaga. (See the earlier discussion on Philosophy and Popular Culture.) Writing philosophy for the masses in a newspaper does not have to mean selling oneself out to pop culture. Have a little self-respect and believe that what you do is important, even if it does not seem 'relevant'.
Weekly, in the major newspapers of a country like, e.g., Germany, there are articles written by philosophers, solid interviews with the likes of Habermas, Taylor, Frankfurt, Neiman, et al., reportage on conferences and major papers, and reviews of relevant philosophical books written by philosophers who have some expertise in the sub-field which the book in question seeks to address.
I don't know about anyone else, but that's what I'd like to see, even though I know it will never happen. Instead we have "The Stone" and a modern-day Dear Abby column which goes by the name of 'The Ethicist.'
How about philosophers like Weatherson, Stich, Horwich, Sider, Velleman, Goldman, Gibbard, Nussbaum, Sosa, McDowell, or Brandom? Maybe a younger guy like Knobe. It might be nice to have some philosophers of science in the mix as well: van Fraassen, Woodward, Strevens, Hitchcock, Norton, or Skyrms. One could get a bit of actual philosophy going by say, giving two (or several) philosophers a topic and having them moot it for a while.
@12:56,
Agreed, but at least the Ethicist gave us (sort of) the Unethicist, which is often hilarious.
Observations from an old cranky jerk who happens to be a professional philosopher. Occasionally philosophical, most often just vulgar. Sometimes focused on sober points of logic and issues in political theory, but more frequently fixed on nonsense. Bad metal bands, crappy guitarists, stupid lyrics, celebrities, pop "culture," telemarketers, irrationality, and other annoyances. Always misanthropic. Anti-religious. Not particularly amusing, either. Some might say insulting. Strange mail. Kook magnet. Doom. Comments from other cranky jerks, young and old.
12 comments:
This is indeed a Fish dish that I find surprisingly palatable!
But how depressing too. . .
Thanks for posting Spiros.
Amazing. I think he may have. That piece the other day in "The Stone" on Lady Gaga on the other hand... DOOM!
Who knew Fish was capable of such an essay?
The Lady Gaga "Stone"... don't get me started. Seriously: can't we make it stop? Hasn't whatever-his-name-is (the "takes his time" guy) done enough damage to the public image of the profession?
Dear New York Times,
"The Stone" is perhaps the outcome of a good idea. But you got boondoggled by a bunch of amateurs. Please either discontinue it, or put it in the hands of good philosophers.
Sincerely,
--Spiros
What was the problem with the Lady Gaga piece?
I look forward to the return of the ass who said that criticizing student evaluations was motivated by hatred of students. Those were the days.
Verification: voidlet
Two quick things on the NYT Stone series.
1. Bauer's essay, I thought, was good. Well, for an essay on Lady Gaga. But that's the problem, I guess. Anyway, for what it was, I had no problem with it -- "self-objectification" is worth thinking through, and Bauer seemed on the right track.
2. Bernstein has a new piece up responding to critics.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/the-usefulness-of-anger-a-response/
Is Fish that guy who wrote that piece saying the humanities are of no instrumental value?
I thought the piece on Gaga did a good job at taking ideas that are not necessarily intuitive and applying them in ways which are understandable to non-philosophers. That is the point of The Stone, is it not? Generally, don't see a problem invoking popular culture in the discussion of philosophy, especially if it more or less comes naturally to oneself. While you obviously don't want to cheapen the philosophy with too much pop culture references, it's a nice way of grabbing people's interest and attention and showing them how philosophy is indeed relevant (sadly, people are woefully uninformed and think it is, by and large, not).
I'm curious what philosophers y'all think would be more appropriate for such a venture (besides Spiros, of course). I think it'd be fun to unleash Roger Scruton on The Stone if for no other reason than the reactions...
Oops, that should be "Generally, I don't see a problem..." above.
The problem with the Lady Gaga piece is that it is about Lady Gaga. (See the earlier discussion on Philosophy and Popular Culture.) Writing philosophy for the masses in a newspaper does not have to mean selling oneself out to pop culture. Have a little self-respect and believe that what you do is important, even if it does not seem 'relevant'.
Weekly, in the major newspapers of a country like, e.g., Germany, there are articles written by philosophers, solid interviews with the likes of Habermas, Taylor, Frankfurt, Neiman, et al., reportage on conferences and major papers, and reviews of relevant philosophical books written by philosophers who have some expertise in the sub-field which the book in question seeks to address.
I don't know about anyone else, but that's what I'd like to see, even though I know it will never happen. Instead we have "The Stone" and a modern-day Dear Abby column which goes by the name of 'The Ethicist.'
@ 12:25,
How about philosophers like Weatherson, Stich, Horwich, Sider, Velleman, Goldman, Gibbard, Nussbaum, Sosa, McDowell, or Brandom? Maybe a younger guy like Knobe. It might be nice to have some philosophers of science in the mix as well: van Fraassen, Woodward, Strevens, Hitchcock, Norton, or Skyrms. One could get a bit of actual philosophy going by say, giving two (or several) philosophers a topic and having them moot it for a while.
@12:56,
Agreed, but at least the Ethicist gave us (sort of) the Unethicist, which is often hilarious.
He posted part two last night.
Post a Comment