A Semi-rational creature confronts a universe of ever expanding fuckedupness
Friday, February 25, 2011
Book Review: Priceless Opening
"The question that I kept before me as I was reading this book and preparing to write this review is whether philosophers can learn anything valuable from it."
How the reviewer answers this question is just as priceless:
"The most I can say is that in the course of reading what Girgus has to say about Levinas and the nine or so films he discusses, one is provoked to reflect upon a number of problems and issues concerning Levinas and film, and although Girgus has nothing particularly helpful to say about most of them, it is worthwhile to have them called to our attention."
So, thanks Sam B. Girgus, for going out of your way to call attention to a book not worthy of being called to our attention.
This new trend among philosophers of competing for the biggest asshole award is both worrisome and increasingly boring.
Philosophers seem to be getting more transparently insecure about both their profession's worth and their own professional worth, desperate to feel good at something, anything, even if it's nothing more than the most applauded, soon to be forgotten, putdown of a soon to be forgotten work. We're a sad, sad bunch. Fortunately soon to be extinct.
Philosophers seem to be getting more transparently insecure about both their profession's worth and their own professional worth, desperate to feel good at something, anything, even if it's nothing more than the most applauded, soon to be forgotten, putdown of a soon to be forgotten work.
And Spiros is one of the biggest offenders. For him, refutation is more important (and more fun) than moving forward constructively.
Yeah. Why doesn't Spiros, along with other pesky philosophers, just help people construct their beautiful edifices. Who cares if the foundations are porous and the pieces aren't all connected? Why can't we all just get along and say something nice about the paint?
WV: Helebor. As in, "Her paper was incredibly sharp and well argued, but as a speaker she was helebor."
Obviously, no one wants philosophers to refrain from criticism. But in most cases ignoring bad work is more reasonable and effective than calling attention to it. And although there's value in stomping some sand castles and popping some balloons, it's unnecessary, and just in bad taste, to jump up and down on it afterwards.
That seems right. Being deeply concerned with refutation in professional philosophical life seems like a good thing. Celebrating the destruction of sand castles like mean kids (mean kids who are right, of course) is what blogs are for!
In most cases ignoring bad work is more reasonable and effective than calling attention to it.
Yes, ignoring arguments can be an "effective" way to minimize their influence. But it's hardly the most effective way to discern what's true. (Not to mention how cowardly it is.)
With the label "priceless" forming the only context, Spiros simply mentions the opening of a book review. If there's an enthymeme of argument here, seems to me that the reader must do some heavy lifting to supply the conclusion and any supporting premises. For me "priceless" doesn't quite constitute grounds for taking Spiros to make a particular point. But your milage may vary.
Have the contributors to this thread ever reviewed a book? Here's how it works (with NDPR, and many other sites). NDPR (say) emails X and says , "hey X, we have a book here on Y. Since you're a Y expert, wanna review it?". X says, great, a book on Y! Love to. Then X gets the book and reads it. If the book is hopeless (or in this case it appears, just not very good), X can do one of two things. X can get into contact with NDPR and say "I thought the book was hopeless so I'm not prepared to review it. Sorry to have wasted your time, but you're going to have to look for a new reviewer". Now how would anon 12.39 respond (for instance)? Probably by saying that X was an asshole for wasting NDPR's time. Instead X does a service to the profession and warns them not to waste their time reading the book, and behaves with professional courtesy to NDPR. And what does Anon 12.39 say?
6:24: well said. Furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable that some philosophers should decide to tell NDPR they won't do the review, and others to follow through and do the damning review. The point is that we only get to see the second sort, leading to an illusion that philosophers are obsessed with refutation.
Also, I hereby contest the notion that refutations aren't constructive.
I don't understand why there shouldn't be negative reviews. And sometimes those reviews should be harsh — when, for example, the book's author merits a swift kick in the ass. Which authors sometimes do.
"the book's author merits a swift kick in the ass"
It seems to me that *most* philosophical books' authors deserve a swift kick in the ass. After all they do think that (somehow, magically) they can find out about how things work by just thinking really hard. I shall go roll my eyes now.
1) If you can't distinguish the reviewer from the author under review, then you should get out more. (I'm talking to you Anon 12:39pm).
2) A publicly-inflicted swift kick in the ass is good for scholarship.
3) The reviewer, i.e. Michael Morgan (that's for you 12:39), went out of his way (in the last paragraph) to mention some recent positive work in the vicinity of the topic. I'm grateful for that and hope I get a chance to read some of it in the near future.
4) I probably wouldn't have been able to write the positive remark in the last comment if Spiros hadn't written this particular post to begin with. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Spiros, you need to permanently ban some of the wimps posting in the first few comments who think a critical review cries out for their stupid pop psychology. Jesus Fucking Christ, grow up kids! This is philosophy, not kindergarten.
Also, I hereby contest the notion that refutations aren't constructive.
Oh, *very* nicely done, Anonymous. Why don't you do the hard work of telling us what refutations aren't, instead of just criticizing others' views of what refutations aren't???
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.
24 comments:
How the reviewer answers this question is just as priceless:
"The most I can say is that in the course of reading what Girgus has to say about Levinas and the nine or so films he discusses, one is provoked to reflect upon a number of problems and issues concerning Levinas and film, and although Girgus has nothing particularly helpful to say about most of them, it is worthwhile to have them called to our attention."
So, thanks Sam B. Girgus, for going out of your way to call attention to a book not worthy of being called to our attention.
This new trend among philosophers of competing for the biggest asshole award is both worrisome and increasingly boring.
Philosophers seem to be getting more transparently insecure about both their profession's worth and their own professional worth, desperate to feel good at something, anything, even if it's nothing more than the most applauded, soon to be forgotten, putdown of a soon to be forgotten work. We're a sad, sad bunch. Fortunately soon to be extinct.
Philosophers seem to be getting more transparently insecure about both their profession's worth and their own professional worth, desperate to feel good at something, anything, even if it's nothing more than the most applauded, soon to be forgotten, putdown of a soon to be forgotten work.
And Spiros is one of the biggest offenders. For him, refutation is more important (and more fun) than moving forward constructively.
Yeah. Why doesn't Spiros, along with other pesky philosophers, just help people construct their beautiful edifices. Who cares if the foundations are porous and the pieces aren't all connected? Why can't we all just get along and say something nice about the paint?
WV: Helebor. As in, "Her paper was incredibly sharp and well argued, but as a speaker she was helebor."
3:29,
Obviously, no one wants philosophers to refrain from criticism. But in most cases ignoring bad work is more reasonable and effective than calling attention to it. And although there's value in stomping some sand castles and popping some balloons, it's unnecessary, and just in bad taste, to jump up and down on it afterwards.
That seems right. Being deeply concerned with refutation in professional philosophical life seems like a good thing. Celebrating the destruction of sand castles like mean kids (mean kids who are right, of course) is what blogs are for!
Picking on Spiros??!! Talk about killing the messenger. . .
wv: "pated" as in the reviewer certainly pated the author.
In most cases ignoring bad work is more reasonable and effective than calling attention to it.
Yes, ignoring arguments can be an "effective" way to minimize their influence. But it's hardly the most effective way to discern what's true. (Not to mention how cowardly it is.)
4:50,
What message is Spiros delivering in this case?
4:50 here.
With the label "priceless" forming the only context, Spiros simply mentions the opening of a book review. If there's an enthymeme of argument here, seems to me that the reader must do some heavy lifting to supply the conclusion and any supporting premises. For me "priceless" doesn't quite constitute grounds for taking Spiros to make a particular point. But your milage may vary.
Anon 1:37 So going by this blog you know that ALL Spiros ever does is refute??? Really??? That's a false inference if ever there was one.
The internet is too dangerous for you if you can't put an anonymous blog (with its stated intentions) into perspective.
Have the contributors to this thread ever reviewed a book? Here's how it works (with NDPR, and many other sites). NDPR (say) emails X and says , "hey X, we have a book here on Y. Since you're a Y expert, wanna review it?". X says, great, a book on Y! Love to. Then X gets the book and reads it. If the book is hopeless (or in this case it appears, just not very good), X can do one of two things. X can get into contact with NDPR and say "I thought the book was hopeless so I'm not prepared to review it. Sorry to have wasted your time, but you're going to have to look for a new reviewer". Now how would anon 12.39 respond (for instance)? Probably by saying that X was an asshole for wasting NDPR's time. Instead X does a service to the profession and warns them not to waste their time reading the book, and behaves with professional courtesy to NDPR. And what does Anon 12.39 say?
6:24: well said.
Furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable that some philosophers should decide to tell NDPR they won't do the review, and others to follow through and do the damning review. The point is that we only get to see the second sort, leading to an illusion that philosophers are obsessed with refutation.
Also, I hereby contest the notion that refutations aren't constructive.
I don't understand why there shouldn't be negative reviews. And sometimes those reviews should be harsh — when, for example, the book's author merits a swift kick in the ass. Which authors sometimes do.
"the book's author merits a swift kick in the ass"
It seems to me that *most* philosophical books' authors deserve a swift kick in the ass. After all they do think that (somehow, magically) they can find out about how things work by just thinking really hard. I shall go roll my eyes now.
Four points:
1) If you can't distinguish the reviewer from the author under review, then you should get out more. (I'm talking to you Anon 12:39pm).
2) A publicly-inflicted swift kick in the ass is good for scholarship.
3) The reviewer, i.e. Michael Morgan (that's for you 12:39), went out of his way (in the last paragraph) to mention some recent positive work in the vicinity of the topic. I'm grateful for that and hope I get a chance to read some of it in the near future.
4) I probably wouldn't have been able to write the positive remark in the last comment if Spiros hadn't written this particular post to begin with. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
"discern what's true"
"cowardly"
"merits"
"deserves"
What a bunch of superstitious, true believer ninnies. It's always like a church service on this blog.
You're the one who's here on Sunday morning.
Spiros, you need to permanently ban some of the wimps posting in the first few comments who think a critical review cries out for their stupid pop psychology. Jesus Fucking Christ, grow up kids! This is philosophy, not kindergarten.
Also, I hereby contest the notion that refutations aren't constructive.
Oh, *very* nicely done, Anonymous. Why don't you do the hard work of telling us what refutations aren't, instead of just criticizing others' views of what refutations aren't???
"Jesus Fucking Christ, grow up kids! This is philosophy, not kindergarten"
6:26, your lack of critical self-awareness or any sense of irony is absolutely breathtaking.
I'm honestly unsure of whether 3:20 is ironic or unbelievably stupid. So, 3:20's surface content is confirmed, I guess.
Chairephon,
This is 7:10, to whom your 6:26 was responding.
Note that there are two consecutive comments with "6:26" time stamps! I believe 3:20 was referring to the truly Anonymous one, not yours.
The layers of irony here are mind-boggling.
(And needless? to say, I did get it.)
And I have no excuse, since 3:20 even quotes the other 6:26. The layers of stupidity (in my own person) are also mind-boggling.
Post a Comment