By noting this lack of argument, my intention is not to be critical. Indeed, this belongs necessarily to the phenomenological or "legomenological" mode of thinking to which this book's readers are being called and, indeed, which the book is finding already in Aristotle's texts. Long's philosophical task here is not, for instance, to identify an indubitable premise or premises on which to build an airtight deduction in order to arrive at scientific certainty. Rather, his task is the clarification of what is already appearing in these passages, an interpretation of what these passages are already saying to us.Of course, the reviewer doesn't want to be critical. That's apparently not what reviews are for. Rather, the point is to praise the book without specifying anything about its contents. Well done!
I also like how the review does us the courtesy of showing that he does not really know what an argument is. He says that the book does not engage in "argument" (understood as something strictly deductive and yet aimed at "scientific certainty"!), but rather aspires to "clarify." But apparently the envisoined clarification is possible without reasons or inference. Duh.
16 comments:
But the review starts by quoting Hölderlin, which brings an umlaut into play, and umlauts are totally bad-ass. On the other hand, any umlaut-points gained are probably negated by the appearance of the phrase 'always already'. I'd say it's a wash...
Glaucon: not a wash. Not even umlauts can compensate for this: "an interpretation of what these passages are already saying to us." Typical nitwit bs that gives honest continentalists a bad name.
I think Spiros could be a bit more charitable here. For example, perhaps Aristotle & the Nature of Truth is in fact just a heavily highlighted copy of The Collected Works of Aristotle.
"Indeed, I found myself nodding along often, but a greater depth of insight would have been achieved, I believe, had he included some more contextualizing methodological reflections and had he occasionally upset the flowing repetition of his own terminology to relate the concepts at stake in more conventional language."
Don't succumb to Legomenological thinking. Legomen are already too powerful. Look at this smug, sinister bastard taking his first step toward the domination of space.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQwLmGR6bPA
What's next?
Ha ha "every once in a while"
'every once in a while' is as bad as 'always already' - but Spiros does not even give us an umlaut in compensation...
This review doesn't hold a candle to this: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/28472-not-half-no-end-militantly-melancholic-essays-in-memory-of-jacques-derrida/
Apparently thinking is impossible now that Derrida is dead, philosophers can't or don't read stuff, and -- steady yourselves -- "Infinite différance is finite."
"Of course, the reviewer doesn't want to be critical. That's apparently not what reviews are for. Rather, the point is to praise the book without specifying anything about its contents. Well done!"
It's rare to see a worry that most book reviewers have laid out so nakedly. That is, book reviewing is not only altruistic (by drawing attention to the author's work), but self-destructive (if you criticize the author's work, you can easily earn his or her enmity). Consequently, the weight of the incentives is to make all book reviews puff pieces.
Lego, men, is mo' logical than Lincoln logs. And more Danish and colorful too. Why in heaven's name didn't the NDPR reviewer acknowledge that? At least twelve more umlauts and one citation each to E.T.A. Hoffman and Georg Trakl are required to fill that lacuna and make us readers whole.
Yeah, 3:03, I was going to point to that hideous and pretentious "not half no end" NDPR, too. And worse, we got it twice. I wonder if the book itself is even half as excruciating.
Lego men always already rüle.
When I note to my students the lack of an argument in Descartes' second meditation for the indubitably of 'I think', and his lack of an argument for 'if I think, then I am', I don't mean to be critical.
It is silly to suppose that all serious philosophy consists in providing arguments. Sometimes, as Avicenna said, what is needed is not argument but educative prodding, to get someone to see something that is already before them, when they are oblivious.
Is an insipid and spurious review more damning than a very negative critical review? Has a terrible review every been published out of spite? I hope the author isn't the victim here. Philosophical police, open your investigations, follow the trail of umlauts to the perpetrators.
Re:spiteful publishing question. A note of clarification, I meant whether a publisher might accept a poor review for the purpose of pursuing vendetta. Obviously people have written terribly negative reviews for the purposes of trashing their opponents (though sometimes to further their friends careers, see Marx and Engels) throughout history.
Question for Anonymous: When did either Marx of Engels write a damning review to further a friend's career? It's not that I think either of them was above such things, but I thought I was fairly familiar with their lives, having read several biographies, but I can't recall any such episode. I'm looking forward to an interesting anecdote!
Charles Pigden
Post a Comment