Ms Rand virtually unknown in Uk Why?
Charles Cawley
Relativism is a one of the most effective indirect methods of censorship and
disenfranchisement ever invented. To the amazement of many American
friends, I first found out of the existence of Ayn Rand through the
internet. A few minutes ago I rang a leading academic book shop
in central London, UK and asked them if they had any books on
Objectivism or anything about Ayn Rand.
The helpful man said "We have got some, but not all of it". They have 'The
Voice of Reason'. 'The Virtue of Selfishness'. 'Objectivism'. 'The
Lexicon'. and 'Objective Epistemology'. Some novels are also available.
This is all-- from the leading shop of its kind in the UK.
In University at Manchester, when we studied Philosophy as a specialist
degree course, "Objectivism" was never mentioned nor was her name. Indeed
in the 1970s, it appeared all that came before Wittengenstein and his empty
despotism of words was treated tolerantly, but anything near or after his
time which runs significantly counter to his creed, is virtually censored
out of existence. Ideas are forbidden in many schools of philosophy and
anything which might challenge the mantras of relativists is strongly
suppressed.
There are large sections of the British Intellegensia which are not only
utterly ignorant of Ms Ayn Rand and her works, but are also ignorant of the
themes and backgrounds to films such as 'The Boys from Brazil'. Certain
studies and philosophers have in effect been censored out of existence.
The bane of relativism has extended into the Art world with a vengeance, and
here too, it is suffocating talent by suppressing great art. Instead, the
"respectable people" of the art world are now promoting the notorious case
of the Wheelie Bin of Mr Landy, now showing at the Tate Gallery in London.
By promoting rubbish they are rubbishing artists. In the same way
Wittengenstein rubbished great Philosophy by his pride in not having a
library and in his strange and fantastically arrogant and negative metaphor.
It appears once you have climbed the ladder to what he has discovered, you
should then kick it away. Read the books and then burn them. For goodness
sake keep the undergrads away from ideas or anything which runs counter to
the master after his time.
So we in the UK are reaping the harvest of relativism which is coming to the
stage of open insults delivered by the artistic world and the schools of
philosophy. Rubbish now literally passes as art and the schools of
philosophy appear to openly approve of the incredible self defeating
negativity of relativism. The schools of philosophy have failed to come up
with theories we desperately need about Democracy and decency.
Because relativism appears to deny the right to judge: yes you are permitted
to listen, but not permitted to come to a conclusion: people are muzzled.
They are muzzled, not because they are forbidden to speak, or vote, (thank
god), but because THEY ARE NOT LISTENED TOO. After all, if you consider one
opinion as valid as the next, regardless, why bother listening to anybody?
Some people display incredible attitudes towards the opinions of those they
feel are not to be listened too, such as bin men.
The trends in the art world, in the academic world and in the political
world are closely linked. Censorship is very ugly and unkind. It detests
'ideas',(a forbidden word in many schools of philosophy which prefer static
non threatening 'concepts') and is deeply conservative.
Most of us in the UK have benefited from a fantastic rise in the standard of
living over the last 40 years. Many people have risen up from the ranks.
They now will do anything to make certain the status quo is maintained. The
theories of relativism and the way they suppress change and ideas are
excellent vehicles to ossify society and return affairs to a similar frozen
social state of long ago. University students are controlled and strongly
discouraged to produce ideas which might make their tutors look incompetent.
The wish to maintain tenure appears to be the first most important
consideration of 90% of the academics and Relativism is a wonderful creed to
stop people from 'having ideas'.
Relativism is not only negative and destructive it is essentially
undemocratic. It rubbishes the value of peoples judgements. It is self and
self defeating.
If art reflects political life, we are in for a rough ride.
Regards,
Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
Chris R. Tame
In article <67b8ol$kt1$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, Charles Cawley
<Gatewa...@btinternet.com> writes
radio and television programmes and there have been a surprisingly large
number of references to her in UK press articles (eg the profile in the
Guardian's colour supplement a few months ago). The publications of my
group the LA include many discussions, pro and con, of her ideas, and,
of course, I used to sell huge numbers of her works from the Alternative
Bookshop in Covent garden, back in the Eighties.
Orthodox academic disdain for Objectivism, and for libertarianism in
general, is to be expected, but the power of truth over falsehood in the
long run is immense.
You might find the publications of the LA (address details below) of
interst, especially those on aesthetics and the arts.
--
Chris R. Tame, Director
Libertarian Alliance | "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, |
25 Chapter Chambers | and the secret of Freedom is Courage" |
Esterbrooke Street | Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration |
London SW1P 4NN
England
Tel: 0171 821 5502
Fax: 0171 834 2031
Email: ch...@rand.demon.co.uk
LA Web Site: http://www.digiweb.com/igeldard/LA/
Free Life Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig
Ian Samuels
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Charles Cawley wrote:
[snip]
> There are large sections of the British Intellegensia which are not only
> utterly ignorant of Ms Ayn Rand and her works, but are also ignorant of the
> themes and backgrounds to films such as 'The Boys from Brazil'. Certain
> studies and philosophers have in effect been censored out of existence.
I hate to break it to you, but most of the
people who have read Rand aren't impressed by her
either as a thinker or a writer; her Objectivist
followers are notable as the exception to the
rule. Just because you may happen to like her
doesn't obligate the rest of us to regard her as a
genius, nor does it obligate bookstores to
suddenly pretend there's a huge demand for her
books.
[snip much stuff about "relativism"]
> Because relativism appears to deny the right to judge: yes you are permitted
> to listen, but not permitted to come to a conclusion: people are muzzled.
I find all this a bit bizarre, since true
relativists are damned hard to come by in the
post-modernist dominated disciplines like art,
literature and philosophy. Post-modernism and
relativism are *not* equivalent -- because
post-modernism most certainly *does* make
judgments and come to conclusions. (Sometimes
useful, sometimes bizarre or just whacked,
but conclusions ne'ertheless.)
> They are muzzled, not because they are forbidden to speak, or vote, (thank
> god), but because THEY ARE NOT LISTENED TO.
A couple of questions. Why should someone
who's not worth listening to be listened to? And
how, if I choose not to give an ear to every
crackpot political theory, am I "muzzling"
someone?
[snip]
Cheers,
Ian
___________________________________________________
"Know your enemy, know yourself, and in a
thousand battles you will not be defeated." - Sun
Tzu, _The Art of War_
"SPOON!" - The Tick
Charles Cawley
Ian Samuels wrote in message <67ij5c$p...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Charles Cawley wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
> I hate to break it to you, but most of the
>people who have read Rand aren't impressed by her
>either as a thinker or a writer; her Objectivist
>followers are notable as the exception to the
>rule. Just because you may happen to like her
>doesn't obligate the rest of us to regard her as a
>genius, nor does it obligate bookstores to
>suddenly pretend there's a huge demand for her
>books.
The lack of demand was the point. Academic bookshops demand patterns are
very strongly influenced by the academic world and what students are being
introduced and what is being witheld from them. Because someone is
considered to be an unimpressive "thinker" is not alone enough to justify
ignoring what they have to say. The point is that Ms Rand has influenced
many thousands more in her works than many of the thinkers which are
considered appropriate for students to find out about. There is no doubt
she was a philosopher and considering the effect she has had on thousands
surely it might be an idea to find out what is going on?
Your type of argument has been used for over fifty years to suppress study
and understanding of Mein Kamph. This book, which was written by someone
who changed world history and nearly wiped our county off the map. It is
considered not the work of a "thinker", and so it is suppressed rather like
sweeping dust under the carpet. Over the years the carpet bulges and a
ghastly stink pervades the space of the academic world as it fails to
provide definitive answers. Such was the force of twisted philosophy that
in early Nazi Germany 'The sin against the Blood' out sold the bible for
some years. But academics shrink from showing the strength of their
philosophy, possibly because they know it is useless and cannot handle such
brutal realities.
Just as Stalinist Russia censored pictures by blotting out people who fell
from favor, so philosophers have been blotted off the academic list of the
"worthy" and consigned to oblivion. A remark you make below reveals an
interesting presumption.
>
>snip >
>> Because relativism appears to deny the right to judge: yes you are
permitted
>> to listen, but not permitted to come to a conclusion: people are muzzled.
>
> I find all this a bit bizarre snip
"Bizarre" is a favorite word of academics and others to display a will not
to listen and to encourage others not to listen. "This is the work of a mad
man, do not listen." It is sometimes linked to shrouded ad hominum.
because post-modernism most certainly *does* make
>judgments and come to conclusions.
Ok, please tell me how it deals with the Democracy, morality or some other
pressing question in a direct, practical and useful manner.
Snip
>
>> They are muzzled, not because they are forbidden to speak, or vote,
(thank
>> god), but because THEY ARE NOT LISTENED TO.
>
> A couple of questions. Why should someone
>who's not worth listening to be listened to?
How can you tell it someone is worth listening to unless you listen? This
is a circular argument. It is an especially English habit to only listen if
someone in authority gives the green light. We let others censor our ears.
Of course if time is pressing, such as is sometimes the case in industrial
disputes, then listening has to be cut short and we have to lean on pre
established formulas of experience to short cut thinking time. But if you
are searching for answers, failure to carefully listen is a disaster.
And
>how, if I choose not to give an ear to every
>crackpot political theory, am I "muzzling"
>someone?
Are you frightened to listen? You are very daring to presume to know what
someone has to say before they have said it: may-be you feel the opinions
of others are qualified to guide your ears. This is a much loved approach
of academics and politicians who "know they are right".
Yes, failure to listen is offensive when people are talking about, or
attempting to contibute to political and moral matters. If someone is not
listened too, why should they bother to speak? There is no purpose to
speech if people fail to listen. It is muzzling. In the same way People
will sometimes refuse to speak English so they can isolate tourists and make
a point; (often for very strongly felt reasons).
Finally, I do not particularly like Mrs Rand's approach, just as I am not
overly keen on Hitler and his works, BUT FAILURE TO LISTEN IS HIGHLY
OFFENSIVE AND LEADS TO IGNORANCE. It is no surprise some use circular
arguments and suggest ad hominum. The former indicates weak argument and
the latter is strictly not an argument, but an attempt at finding an excuse
not to listen.
The five classic incorrect forms are: Ad Hominum, Generic, Specific to
General, By Authority, Irrelevant conclusion. They all are devices designed
to stop or minimise listening. Failure to listen by those in authority is
doubly offensive, firstly because it is an insult to those attempting to
communicate and secondly because it often leads to ignorance and self
disempowerment. By the simple intuitive statement Information Plus
Authority permits the exercise of Power we then see impotence arise in those
vested with authority.
The insult of "Ignorant Boss" has rang out from the workforce for over 50
years in industry. Perhaps this might better illustrate what is really
being said.
Regards,
Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
Michael Jubb
[snip all]
All i can say is that if there is a person or book that inspires you but
which you think is being ignored by the intellectual community, perhaps
it is your job to rectify this wrong. If you're not a qualified teacher
perhaps you can do it informally in the local school or the like.
Are you suprised that teachers don't use texts which don't inspire them
(especially at uni. level), it would make for a very boring class if
they did.
Charles Cawley
Michael Jubb wrote in message <349E6D...@ariel.macarthur.uws.edu.au>...
What inspires most teachers, and indeed most employees, is job security. If
you say something new, or are associated with anything which appears to go
against orthodoxy, (in this case the post Wittengenstein relativist approach
much in dominance in the UK), you are sticking your neck out. Even so
called "creative people" are drawn into this vortex of negativity and openly
say, "there is no arguing about aesthetics."
If you do stand up for new ideas, your colleagues and uni administrations
will take this as a sign of someone with a mind of their own and one willing
to make advances. New ideas people upset the examination system which
perforce depends on reference to "accepted knowledge". They also threaten
all those who have made a living as experts on matters the new ideas may
clear away.
In my time at a college in I was warned by academics "Not to try it on".
Despite this, I was awarded a second class degree, even though I managed
only 4% (think about this, it is less than one out of twenty), in one of my
finals exams. It was a nightmare sitting a paper which I knew I was doomed
to fail as I was too young and inexperienced to lie and write what was
expected, rather than what came from the heart. (Yes I was a naive little
chap).
What saved me at another time was a work I submitted entitled 'A Unified
Theory of Society' to the now Professor Lord Plant who was then a senior
lecturer at my University. It was submitted as an essay of about 100 pages,
but the authorities refused to comment on it or mark it. From then on,
about half way through my uni course, I never wrote another essay except in
the final examinations. The wretched effort now haunts some dusty drawer in
my house and its untidy biro written thoughts are now my oldest possession.
Sad, isn't it?
May be they were being very kind to me and not dashing the hopes of a raw 23
year old scribbler. I was very grateful for the second class degree, as a
third class was on the cards.
Many teachers would be delighted to use texts which inspire them, however
they are only too aware of the priorities of control which administration
requires and thus they toe the line. I do not blame them, but their actions
still upset me. I suspect many of them secretly agree with my sentiments
and feel trapped and dismayed that they cannot explore ideas with their
students as they might wish.
Yes indeed, I am doing something to right this matter, and these posts are
part of the work. Retreat from the responsibility to judge is very serious.
It represents a retreat from the duty to look after your fellow man and as
such, appears uncharitable and dangerous. If this infects our political
life, then something needs to be done quickly.
Regards,
Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
Ian Samuels
I've been off the net for a long while, so this
response to Charles Cawley's post won't be
incredibly topical; I'm basically clearing out my
postponed messages cue. My apologies in advance.
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Charles Cawley wrote:
>
> Ian Samuels wrote in message <67ij5c$p...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> >On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Charles Cawley wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> > I hate to break it to you, but most of the
> >people who have read Rand aren't impressed by her
> >either as a thinker or a writer; her Objectivist
> >followers are notable as the exception to the
> >rule. Just because you may happen to like her
> >doesn't obligate the rest of us to regard her as a
> >genius, nor does it obligate bookstores to
> >suddenly pretend there's a huge demand for her
> >books.
>
> The lack of demand was the point. Academic bookshops demand patterns are
> very strongly influenced by the academic world and what students are being
> introduced and what is being witheld from them.
Who else should "academic" bookshops'
demand patterns be influenced by? Whose place is
it to decide for university bookstores (or
libraries) what they think, and on what they
should spend their limited resources? Maybe it's
not so great an evil to leave those choices up to
people who have actually studied in the areas
they're teaching, and have (perhaps) evaluated
Rand and found her not particularly interesting.
Because someone is
> considered to be an unimpressive "thinker" is not alone enough to justify
> ignoring what they have to say.
Rand is one "thinker" out of many. If you
have the resources to purchase large amounts of
material by essentially fringe thinkers, then by
all means it makes sense to have Rand in your
collection. By no means do I advocate "ignoring"
her, any more than I would advocate "ignoring"
other elements of the extreme Right (and
essentially this is what she was); in fact, I
think doing so would be dangerous. But if you
don't have the resources to buy every book in
print (and most booksellers don't), I would argue
(and it would seem many booksellers would agree
with me) that all things being equal, there *are*
better things to spend your money on. I, for one,
would never actually spend money on anything
written by Rand and her supporters.
"Academic" booksellers (in my neck of the
woods) have no stake, as you seem to be implying,
in buying only the books that agree with their
positions -- especially since, contrary to
contemporary paranoia about academics, there is no
such thing as a single academic "position" on
anything in any subject. But they do have a stake
in paying attention to ideas which have made a
serious impact or provided some serious
contribution -- and after reading her, there
simply are not many people who feel that Rand
meets these criteria.
The point is that Ms Rand has influenced
> many thousands more in her works than many of the thinkers which are
> considered appropriate for students to find out about.
Care to provide any examples?
[snip]
>
> Your type of argument has been used for over fifty years to suppress study
> and understanding of Mein Kamph. This book, which was written by someone
> who changed world history and nearly wiped our county off the map.
I don't think Rand is in any way
comparable to Hitler in terms of her impact or her
ideas. An argument could be made for some
Objectivist influence in more mainstream
right-wing circles, but I don't see terribly much
evidence of that either; more old-fashioned
"conservatism," nationalism and various forms of
religious fundamentalism seem to me to be much
more important in that regard.
> It is
> considered not the work of a "thinker", and so it is suppressed rather like
> sweeping dust under the carpet.
"Suppressed" strikes me as rather paranoid
and uncalled-for rhetoric. Because university
physicists don't generally offer courses on
UFOlogy, are they "suppressing" it? Or are they
simply, and justifiably, refusing to treat it as a
serious scientific subject?
> Just as Stalinist Russia
...and maybe we could have one thread on a
talk.politics group that doesn't mention Stalinist
Russia at some point, hmmm?
[snip]
> >> Because relativism appears to deny the right to judge: yes you are
> permitted
> >> to listen, but not permitted to come to a conclusion: people are muzzled.
> >
> > I find all this a bit bizarre snip
>
> "Bizarre" is a favorite word of academics and others to display a will not
> to listen and to encourage others not to listen.
In my case, it simply signals genuine
puzzlement at the choice of the term "relativism"
to describe post-modernism. I'm sorry if it
offended you.
> because post-modernism most certainly *does* make
> >judgments and come to conclusions.
>
> Ok, please tell me how it deals with the Democracy, morality or some other
> pressing question in a direct, practical and useful manner.
I will, but before I do that I should
point out that I wasn't necessarily speaking in
defense of post-modernism -- simply pointing out
that "relativism" isn't an accurate description of
it.
That having been said, most post-modernist
thinking has its origins in literary criticism and
an awareness of language as a tool of power; this
has led to some useful ways of looking at how
society is _constructed_ and at the fact that
things like race and gender are artificial
constructs created to a purpose. It has also led
to a great deal of nonsense and sloppy thinking
(including a deep suspicion of rationality that I
simply can't agree with) but what it has
emphatically _not_ led to is relativist thinking.
This is my point.
[snip]
> And
> >how, if I choose not to give an ear to every
> >crackpot political theory, am I "muzzling"
> >someone?
>
> Are you frightened to listen?
[snip]
Hardly. Nor do I have infinite time do so,
so I have to be somewhat discriminating about what
I listen to and what literature I buy. As does
everyone. For example, given the choice between
reading the latest John Ralston Saul or the
Unabomber Manifesto, I'm likely -- given time and
resource constraints -- to choose the former.
Again, I actually do sympathize with your
wariness about this -- worldviews can become
self-reinforcing simply through what we choose not
to read. The answer is to sort through our
environment as critically as possible, and read as
much and as broadly as we can. If it can be
demonstrated that a theory or thinker is having an
impact, then criticism of bookstores for failing
to carry them would be justified; I'm not at all
convinced this is case with Rand. And I most
certainly do *not* sympathize with thinly-veiled
conspiracy theories about "academics and
politicians". I find statements like this:
> may-be you feel the opinions
> of others are qualified to guide your ears. This is a much loved approach
> of academics and politicians who "know they are right".
to be veering dangerously close to
paranoia.
Charles Cawley
Ian Samuels wrote in message <69e9b7$9...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>
snip>
>On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Charles Cawley wrote:
>
>>
>> Ian Samuels wrote in message <67ij5c$p...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>> >On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Charles Cawley wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
snip
Just because you may happen to like her
>> >doesn't obligate the rest of us to regard her as a
>> >genius, nor does it obligate bookstores to
>> >suddenly pretend there's a huge demand for her
>> >books.
>>
>> The lack of demand was the point. Academic bookshops demand patterns are
>> very strongly influenced by the academic world and what students are
being
>> introduced and what is being witheld from them.
>
> Who else should "academic" bookshops'
>demand patterns be influenced by? Whose place is
>it to decide for university bookstores (or
>libraries) what they think, and on what they
>should spend their limited resources? Maybe it's
>not so great an evil to leave those choices up to
>people who have actually studied in the areas
>they're teaching, and have (perhaps) evaluated
>Rand and found her not particularly interesting.
The academic world has an overwhealming influence on the type of books
bought by students for obvious reasons. Those who study Wittgenstein are
bound to be discouraged to purchase books which he himself appeared to
consider unworthy. He was proud not to possess a library and appeared to
consider past philosphers words as those at the bottom of the ladder which
should be pushed away once reaching the elevated plain of his
understandings. Why then bother studying any of those in the first place?
The fact that many students in England are never introduced to the likes of
Hobbes and most of the Ancient philosophers should be one of concern.
Firstly because these people shaped the history of Western Culture and
secondly because they had something interesting to say which influenced many
great minds of the day and later. Are we to believe our minds have evolved
in the meantime and in some way we tower over the intellectual capacity of
our predessors? The art world appears to lend little support to this
approach. Was Shakespeare such a tiny mind? Should we dismiss Aristotle?
>
> Because someone is
>> considered to be an unimpressive "thinker" is not alone enough to justify
>> ignoring what they have to say.
>
> Rand is one "thinker" out of many. If you
>have the resources to purchase large amounts of
>material by essentially fringe thinkers, then by
>all means it makes sense to have Rand in your
>collection. By no means do I advocate "ignoring"
>her, any more than I would advocate "ignoring"
>other elements of the extreme Right (and
>essentially this is what she was); in fact, I
>think doing so would be dangerous
snip
>
> "Academic" booksellers (in my neck of the
>woods) have no stake, as you seem to be implying,
>in buying only the books that agree with their
>positions
I did not say this, they have to run a business just as I do and they are
obliged to stock what the students are instructed to read by their academic
teachers
-- especially since, contrary to
>contemporary paranoia
(dangerous word)
about academics, there is no
>such thing as a single academic "position" on
>anything in any subject.
There is no right and there is no wrong, or have I misunderstood you? You
seem to be speaking the language of relativism
Mr Strawson, a famous academic, when asked by a hippy type student in the
60s why his mark was so low, and surely everything was relative, responded :
"Absolutely". How funny.
I hope things have changed since my time at college at Manchester University
in the 1970s in the UK. It was very unpopular and indeed a little risky to
criticise Mr Marx too strongly and indeed if you attempted to link subjects,
such criticisms as the offense of "Psychologism" were commonly levelled at
students to stop them breaching the careful and negative intellectual
boundaries put up around subjects defined by the 'in philosophy' of the day.
Earlier 'in philosophers' were the likes of Hegel at the turn of the
century, and so on.
snip
>
> The point is that Ms Rand has influenced
>> many thousands more in her works than many of the thinkers which are
>> considered appropriate for students to find out about.
Prof R M Hare. (Oxon). We spent days arguing over the logical properties
of the word "good" as applied to bacon sandwiches and Oxford sewage
effluent. Where are the chat groups about him? Where is the group
alt.Philosophy.Hare?
>
> Care to provide any examples?
See above. But there are many more.
How can you explain the explosion of posts to the the post "What is a
libertarian?" And yet we at Manchester never even mentioned the word
despite all our philosophising.
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Your type of argument has been used for over fifty years to suppress
study
>> and understanding of Mein Kamph. This book, which was written by someone
>> who changed world history and nearly wiped our county off the map.
>
> I don't think Rand is in any way
>comparable to Hitler in terms of her impact or her
>ideas.
I was never attempting to say Ms Rand & Hitler were Nazies together and I
refer you to above for the first part of your remark.
snip
>> It is
>> considered not the work of a "thinker", and so it is suppressed rather
like
>> sweeping dust under the carpet.
>
> "Suppressed" strikes me as rather paranoid
>and uncalled-for rhetoric. Because university
>physicists don't generally offer courses on
>UFOlogy, are they "suppressing" it? Or are they
>simply, and justifiably, refusing to treat it as a
>serious scientific subject?
Be careful of the word "scientific". (see below on sloppy use of words).
Suppression can be unintentional. Paronoia, I think, implies will on the
parties or party doing the unkind deed. Rhetoric it was not. Ignorance of
the thoughts of those who nearly wiped out my family frightens me. Hilter
was no UFO: he was a nasty grim, hard as an iron bar, reality. Your
comparison is dangerously inappropriate. I suggest the past is worth
careful study especially of this tyrant to see how he thought and how to
protect the future from such people by advancing academic studies and
planting into our culture arguements which will act as a bulwark against
their rhetoric and manipulative attempts to con people into inhuman acts in
the name of decency.
>
>> Just as Stalinist Russia
>
> ...and maybe we could have one thread on a
>talk.politics group that doesn't mention Stalinist
>Russia at some point, hmmm?
This is no argument. My kind in the upper class often shut people up by
saying they are "boring". This means "stop listening" and is a common
device to attempt to send difficult awkeward people who have the habit of
having ideas, God forbid, to Coventry. (My answer was as incorrect in form
as your repost deserved).
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> Because relativism appears to deny the right to judge: yes you are
>> permitted
>> >> to listen, but not permitted to come to a conclusion: people are
muzzled.
>> >
>> > I find all this a bit bizarre snip
>>
>> "Bizarre" is a favorite word of academics and others to display a will
not
>> to listen and to encourage others not to listen.
>
Snip
I'm sorry if it offended you.
Thank you. But your attitude to me should be seen in the light of your use
of "Paronia" below. The use of such words when attempting to deal with
someone trying to argue a case is offensive not just to little old paranoic
me. You have still not attempted to answer the question.
>
>> because post-modernism most certainly *does* make
>> >judgments and come to conclusions.
>>
>> Ok, please tell me how it deals with the Democracy, etc snip
>
> I will, but before I
snip
simply pointing out
>that "relativism" isn't an accurate description of
>it.
>
> That having been said, most post-modernist
>thinking has its origins in literary criticism and
>an awareness of language as a tool of power;
Tools have no power of themselves. The ability to use a tool depends on
information and other factors. The intuitive formula Information plus force
permits the exercise of power applies. It is important to be precise here.
The laws of information flow are not relative and run counter to much of
linguistic thought.
this
>has led to some useful ways of looking at how
>society is _constructed_ and at the fact that
>things like race and gender are artificial
>constructs created to a purpose. It has also led
>to a great deal of nonsense and sloppy thinking
>(including a deep suspicion of rationality that I
>simply can't agree with)
See above, I agree with the sloppy bit 100% . For instance scientific
method cannot deal with the ability of people to handle contradiction. We
can and do hold contradiction in suspense in our minds. This gives us
freedom which pure logic forbids. The logicians say A and Not A implies
anything, from this ability to leave thoughts unresolved we gain our freedom
and imagination. Humour is essential to good management and there is a
humor test which can be used which predicts how people will rub along
together, but is does not attempt to analyse: on theother hand it is
rigerous. If you want to know more about this, just ask.
but what it has
>emphatically _not_ led to is relativist thinking.
>This is my point.
>
>[snip]
>
>> And
>> >how, if I choose not to give an ear to every
>> >crackpot political theory, am I "muzzling"
>> >someone?
>>
>> Are you frightened to listen?
>
>[snip]
>
> Hardly. Nor do I have infinite time do so,
>so I have to be somewhat discriminating about what
>I listen to and what literature I buy
A major justification for academia is the time such activity permits to
investigate so much more than the time at our disposal. I do not expect you
to purchase all of Ms Rand. I have only one book myself. Nor do I expect
you to wade through the difficult and revealing writing of a close to world
destroying dictator. But given thousands of millions spent on academia, the
failure of some to do so is serious and a monstrous lack of respect for the
millions sent to their grave by such people. More so it appears to hold the
future to ransom for the sake of present shortsightedness.
>
> Again, I actually do sympathize with your
>wariness about this -- worldviews can become
>self-reinforcing simply through what we choose not
>to read. The answer is to sort through our
>environment as critically as possible, and read as
>much and as broadly as we can. If it can be
>demonstrated that a theory or thinker is having an
>impact, then criticism of bookstores for failing
>to carry them would be justified; I'm not at all
>convinced this is case with Rand. And I most
>certainly do *not* sympathize with thinly-veiled
>conspiracy theories about "academics and
>politicians". I find statements like this:
>
>> may-be you feel the opinions
>> of others are qualified to guide your ears. This is a much loved
approach
>> of academics and politicians who "know they are right".
>
> to be veering dangerously close to
>paranoia.
Hell hath no fury like an academic who thinks someone has pinched their
ideas. Likewise their fury is roused by those who appear to undermine their
work with commonsense. Anyone who has attended senior seminars knows this
to be the case.
Academics do indeed shut up difficult students. How can you maintain order
if some spotty, as I was, student keeps asking questions confusing the
others who just want a degree and a job? Conspiracy theories are easy to
laugh at but the effects of vested interest often act to suppress knowledge
without any individual will to do so. It was an act of gross naivete to
attempt to discuss the weakness of Marx in a lecture or tutorial about his
contribution to social science. Today, rather than in the 1970s, such an
act might be more acceptible but other 'non discussion' areas persist.
The use of the word Paranoia is dangerous. It is a classic method of attack
as defence is often pointed out to only be fuelled by the problem of mental
instability. Likewise for "conspiracy theory" type attacks.
I have had the unfortunate experience to have seen a close friend suffer
from that problem. Believe me, you are very sloppy in your speech. The
wretch was, and still is, in a form of living hell. Academics who should
know better often stray into hyperbole. I do not believe you really meant
that remark.
Thank you for your comments about wariness.
The laws of information flow are interesting and how power is enabled. This
approach opens up answers in a way the impoverished restrictive thought of
the relativists cannot. If you can give me some indication of great results
about morality, Democraccy, political theory, and so on which have arisen
from sources such as the schools of Derrida and Wittengenstein and so on,
please tell me.
Please do not be sloppy about psychological conditions, scientific
methodology, conspiracies. If you want a constructive exchange as I am sure
you do please reply.
Solutions are needed.
Regards,
Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
Ian Samuels
Again I apologize for the long lag in my reply --
busy schedules make for erratic posting.
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Charles Cawley wrote:
>
> Ian Samuels wrote in message <69e9b7$9...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> >
[snip]
> > Who else should "academic" bookshops'
> >demand patterns be influenced by? Whose place is
> >it to decide for university bookstores (or
> >libraries) what they think, and on what they
> >should spend their limited resources? Maybe it's
> >not so great an evil to leave those choices up to
> >people who have actually studied in the areas
> >they're teaching, and have (perhaps) evaluated
> >Rand and found her not particularly interesting.
>
> The academic world has an overwhealming influence on the type of books
> bought by students for obvious reasons. Those who study Wittgenstein are
> bound to be discouraged to purchase books which he himself appeared to
> consider unworthy.
I wouldn't push this point too far. A
student may or may not be influenced by
Wittgenstein or Heidegger (or whoever) after
reading him; I know I, for one, feel no particular
allegiance to the Big W's literary preferences.
There are indeed profs who obviously lean toward
one viewpoint at the expense of another, but there
are also those who deliberately teach widely
contrasting viewpoints.
[snip]
> The fact that many students in England are never introduced to the likes of
> Hobbes and most of the Ancient philosophers should be one of concern.
If so, then I agree. I think you may be
overstating the case, though. Even in relentlessly
post-structuralist philosophy departments I
haven't seen the classical philosophers getting as
badly shafted as you suggest. (Admittedly, though,
Philosophy isn't my major, and U of C is hardly on
the cutting edge.)
[snip my assertion that "this is no such thing as
a single academic "position" on any subject"]
> There is no right and there is no wrong, or have I misunderstood you?
You have. I was saying that there is no
consensus, no monolithic "academic view of the
world" (except insofar as most university students
come from roughly similar backgrounds of
privilege). Do you appreciate the difference?
[snip]
> > The point is that Ms Rand has influenced
> >> many thousands more in her works than many of the thinkers which are
> >> considered appropriate for students to find out about.
>
> Prof R M Hare. (Oxon). We spent days arguing over the logical properties
> of the word "good" as applied to bacon sandwiches and Oxford sewage
> effluent. Where are the chat groups about him? Where is the group
> alt.Philosophy.Hare?
Fair enough. Perhaps a better question is:
should we measure a philosopher's contribution by
how many chat groups there are about him/her on
Usenet? Where is the group alt.philosophy.
neoplatonic? Or talk.philosophy.confucian? This is
_argumentum ad numeram._
[snip]
> How can you explain the explosion of posts to the the post "What is a
> libertarian?" And yet we at Manchester never even mentioned the word
> despite all our philosophising.
We shouldn't fall into the trap of
thinking Usenet, with its well-to-do, largely
professional and business-oriented, 80% white male
population, is in any way representative of the
world at large. The people who post here tend to
represent some very specific interests, which is
precisely why it should surprise no-one that
Objectivists are so thick on the ground on Usenet
and so sparse practically everywhere else.
[snip]
> > "Suppressed" strikes me as rather paranoid
> >and uncalled-for rhetoric. Because university
> >physicists don't generally offer courses on
> >UFOlogy, are they "suppressing" it? Or are they
> >simply, and justifiably, refusing to treat it as a
> >serious scientific subject?
>
> Be careful of the word "scientific". (see below on sloppy use of words).
>
> Suppression can be unintentional. Paronoia, I think, implies will on the
> parties or party doing the unkind deed. Rhetoric it was not. Ignorance of
> the thoughts of those who nearly wiped out my family frightens me. Hilter
> was no UFO: he was a nasty grim, hard as an iron bar, reality.
The apparent confusion here is my fault: I
was referring to attitudes toward Rand as a
philosopher above, *not* to Hitler (about whom I
entirely agree with you).
[snip]
> >> Just as Stalinist Russia
> >
> > ...and maybe we could have one thread on a
> >talk.politics group that doesn't mention Stalinist
> >Russia at some point, hmmm?
>
> This is no argument.
It's just a pet peeve of mine. People on
Usenet have a habit of throwing in gratuitous
emotive references in order to make a point (I
speak as someone who's been guilty of this myself
on more than one occasion); more often than not,
the references are counter -productive and shut
down real dialogue. I understand the temptation,
but your points usually come across just fine
without them.
[snip discussion of postmodernism; I don't think
we're poles apart on this]
> Humour is essential to good management and there is a
> humor test which can be used which predicts how people will rub along
> together, but is does not attempt to analyse: on theother hand it is
> rigerous. If you want to know more about this, just ask.
Okay, I'm asking.
> >[snip]
> >
> > Hardly. Nor do I have infinite time do so,
> >so I have to be somewhat discriminating about what
> >I listen to and what literature I buy
>
> A major justification for academia is the time such activity permits to
> investigate so much more than the time at our disposal. I do not expect you
> to purchase all of Ms Rand.
I usually borrow from the library myself.
Afte having read a few of her books, there's no
power on Earth that could persuade me to spend
money on owning them. ;)
> [snip] But given thousands of millions spent on
> academia, the
> failure of some to do so is serious and a monstrous lack of respect for the
> millions sent to their grave by such people. More so it appears to hold the
> future to ransom for the sake of present shortsightedness.
If this is the case, then I would agree
with you. I'm just saying that you might consider
Rand *has* been given a fairer hearing than you
allow, and may have been rejected at present for
perfectly good reasons.
[snip]
> >I find statements like this:
> >
> >> may-be you feel the opinions
> >> of others are qualified to guide your ears. This is a much loved
> approach
> >> of academics and politicians who "know they are right".
> >
> > to be veering dangerously close to
> >paranoia.
[snip]
> Academics do indeed shut up difficult students. How can you maintain order
> if some spotty, as I was, student keeps asking questions confusing the
> others who just want a degree and a job?
A *job* from a degree in *philosophy*?! ;)
Teaching, of course, requires that you be
open to discussion, but not so open that one
student dominates the class. I personally have had
good experiences with profs with whom I
consistently, even vehemently, disagreed, and who
were able to maintain this balance. Perhaps you
were just unfortunate?
Conspiracy theories are easy to
> laugh at but the effects of vested interest often act to suppress knowledge
> without any individual will to do so. It was an act of gross naivete to
> attempt to discuss the weakness of Marx in a lecture or tutorial about his
> contribution to social science. Today, rather than in the 1970s, such an
> act might be more acceptible but other 'non discussion' areas persist.
This is a much better way of putting it
than you did in your earlier post. My references
to "paranoia" and "conspiracy theory," by the way,
weren't meant as personally as they look in
retrospect; they were meant as an evaluation of
how you were getting your points across, not of
you per se. Your point is well taken, though, I
could've been a bit more sensitive about my usage.
[snip]
> The laws of information flow are interesting and how power is enabled. This
> approach opens up answers in a way the impoverished restrictive thought of
> the relativists cannot.
I'm still not sure who exactly you mean by
"the relativists." I don't see them in today's
academic world.
> If you can give me some indication of great
> results
> about morality, Democraccy, political theory, and so on which have arisen
> from sources such as the schools of Derrida and Wittengenstein and so on,
> please tell me.
(Bit of sarcasm there, perhaps?)
[snip]
I want to reiterate that, as moral or
political philosophers, I'm no fan of
postmodernists in general, who are mostly lit.
critics; I don't propose Foucault or Derrida as
the great political theorists of the century. My
earlier comments about their contribution to
looking at constructions still apply, but don't
think I'm proposing any particular "pomo" thinker
as a model for ethical philosophy; as you point
out, the awareness of language, race or gender as
tools of power has to be placed in the practical
context of their actual uses by governments,
institutions, and movements. One reason I can't
accept a lot of postmodernist assertions is that I
always come out in favour of contextual awareness
(whether it be of an individual, a society or a
"power construct").
That having been said, I think it's
important to recognize that intellectual fads and
fashions are a universal phenomenon in human
institutions and not the exclusive preserve of
academia or public life. (Anyone who thinks
differently should take a look at contemporary
"leadership" seminars in the corporate world.)
It's far more important to understand what
specific groups are involved in or have access to
certain institutions and how that motivates them
to support certain trends in thought and oppose
others.
For example, university scholars in
general will tend to come from fairly privileged
white middle-class backgrounds, particularly in a
setting where little priority is placed on
publicly-funded education; but those in the
sciences, or even the social sciences, will have
very different backgrounds and interests than
those in the humanities. Understanding that
background makes it possible to understand why the
much-pilloried academics of the 70s felt that
Marxist socialism was a true route to social
justice -- and I think it is important to
understand what was going on in society, and in
politics, that made Marxism an attractive option
to a very significant and influential minority of
the middle-class of the time (a minority that
certainly seems to have alienated a significant
percentage of their contemporaries). We don't have
to agree, but striving for that understanding can
keep us out of the realm of cardboard
constructions of various groups and give us some
insights into what was actually happening.
Charles Cawley
Ian Samuels wrote in message <6alb18$s...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>
>Again I apologize for the long lag in my reply --
>busy schedules make for erratic posting.
>
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Charles Cawley wrote:
>
>>
>> Ian Samuels wrote in message <69e9b7$9...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>> >
Cuts
Those who study Wittgenstein are
>> bound to be discouraged to purchase books which he himself appeared to
>> consider unworthy.
>
> I wouldn't push this point too far. A
>student may or may not be influenced by
>Wittgenstein or Heidegger (or whoever) after
>reading him; I know I, for one, feel no particular
>allegiance to the Big W's literary preferences.
>
cut
I agree, but the secondary effect of the spread of acceptible argument form
asap to not acceptible ones is very significant. Thus many end up
unconsciously using forms which originate from a very limited number of
philosophical sources.
>
>[snip]
>
>> The fact that many students in England are never introduced to the likes
of
>> Hobbes and most of the Ancient philosophers should be one of concern.
>
> If so, then I agree.
I am banging an old drum, and it is possible the excesses of 70s UK
universities have been toned down.
>
>[snip my assertion that "this is no such thing as
>a single academic "position" on any subject"]
>
>
>> There is no right and there is no wrong, or have I misunderstood you?
>
> You have. I was saying that there is no
>consensus, no monolithic "academic view of the
>world" (except insofar as most university students
>come from roughly similar backgrounds of
>privilege). Do you appreciate the difference?
Yes, but surely the effect is to deny right and wrong or to reduce the
importance of the use of judgement. i am not against judgement and feel one
of the weaknesses of many college systems is that they turn out students who
are often butchered in industry because they are utterly unprepared to use
their own judgement when confronted with working decsions as supervisors.
My peers driving trucks in the late 70s had endless fun teasing the
trainees. Some won through, but many better ones were driven away into less
significant jobs. (Much to our shame).
>
>[snip]
>
>> > The point is that Ms Rand has influenced
>> >> many thousands more in her works than many of the thinkers which are
>> >> considered appropriate for students to find out about.
>>
>> Prof R M Hare. (Oxon). We spent days arguing over the logical
properties
>> of the word "good" as applied to bacon sandwiches and Oxford sewage
>> effluent. Where are the chat groups about him? Where is the group
>> alt.Philosophy.Hare?
>
> Fair enough. Perhaps a better question is:
>should we measure a philosopher's contribution by
>how many chat groups there are about him/her on
>Usenet? Where is the group alt.philosophy.
>neoplatonic? Or talk.philosophy.confucian? This is
>_argumentum ad numeram._
the articulate and the stirrers, and if not the first, I fear I am one of
the second, tend to have a dramatically greater effect on politics than
those not given such gifts or opportunities. An orator can stirr up tens of
thousands.
>
>[snip]
>
>> How can you explain the explosion of posts to the the post "What is a
>> libertarian?" And yet we at Manchester never even mentioned the word
>> despite all our philosophising.
>
> We shouldn't fall into the trap of
>thinking Usenet, with its well-to-do, largely
>professional and business-oriented, 80% white male
>population, is in any way representative of the
>world at large. The people who post here tend to
>represent some very specific interests, which is
>precisely why it should surprise no-one that
>Objectivists are so thick on the ground on Usenet
>and so sparse practically everywhere else.
I agree, but these type of people tend to have influence far in excess of
their right.
>
Cut, but thanks for your remarks.
>
>
>> Humour is essential to good management and there is a
>> humor test which can be used which predicts how people will rub along
>> together, but is does not attempt to analyse: on theother hand it is
>> rigerous. If you want to know more about this, just ask.
>
> Okay, I'm asking.
see at the end of this post.
>
cut, again, thanks.
>> Academics do indeed shut up difficult students. How can you maintain
order
>> if some spotty, as I was, student keeps asking questions confusing the
>> others who just want a degree and a job?
>
> A *job* from a degree in *philosophy*?! ;)
Yes I got one!
> Teaching, of course, requires that you be
>open to discussion, but not so open that one
>student dominates the class. I personally have had
>good experiences with profs with whom I
>consistently, even vehemently, disagreed, and who
>were able to maintain this balance. Perhaps you
>were just unfortunate?
No, I was plain difficult. But I could have appreciated some assistance and
understanding which would have shut me up.
>
cut, but thanks.
>
>> The laws of information flow are interesting and how power is enabled.
This
>> approach opens up answers in a way the impoverished restrictive thought
of
>> the relativists cannot.
>
> I'm still not sure who exactly you mean by
>"the relativists." I don't see them in today's
>academic world.
The world of "Conceptual art"? Surely it has totally abandoned aesthetic
judgement?
>
>> If you can give me some indication of great
>> results
>> about morality, Democracy, political theory, and so on which have arisen
>> from sources such as the schools of Derrida and Wittengenstein and so on,
>> please tell me.
> (Bit of sarcasm there, perhaps?)
The point is very serious and needs answering. What have they said on
these matters. Or indeed is there any great modern theory about the
greatness of Democracy? This failure is dangerous and should be a source of
shame to many academics.
>[snip]
>
> I want to reiterate that, etc:
Cut
I Understand your point.
>
> That having been said, I think it's
>important to recognize that intellectual fads and
>fashions are a universal phenomenon in human
>institutions and not the exclusive preserve of
>academia or public life
cut
yes
>
cuts
but those (students) in the
>sciences, or even the social sciences, will have
>very different backgrounds and interests than
>those in the humanities. Understanding that
>background makes it possible to understand why the
>much-pilloried academics of the 70s felt that
>Marxist socialism was a true route to social
>justice -- cuts
We used to look upon many such as exhibiting what we called, unkindly, boss
instinct. As they attended seminars with their workers caps dressed in
jeans they thought they were real workers. We, on our trucks, could pick
out one of these know alls at 100 yards. They were far stranger to us than
the bosses.
Some of the opinions of the time verged on the surreal, it was impossible
for anyone but for a white to be racist. etc.
Now many of these Marxists are doing very well conforming in the Media and
elsewhere. I still keep in touch with them, but know only too well their
university days are not to be mentioned. There are several good examples in
the UK TV media also.
Regards,
Charles Cawley Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
THE HUMOR TEST:
Get a pile of magazines, news papers etc;.
With your peer group cut out cartoons, literary jokes, and hundreds of jokes
examples of humour etc. Paste down a randomly selected 100 or so. give
them numbers. This stage should be quite amusing. Try to include those
jokes which you don't get.
Create a sheet like a multipule choice. numbers 1 thru 100.
Each number to have 5 tick boxes. a= this joke is excellent. b=I laughed
c=Think I get it d=not funny e=perhaps you need medical attention?
Get all the staff to do the exercise. You will then have a tick
profile/pattern of what made them laugh and how much.
If you have a business and want to employ a new person, get them to do the
exercise. If their pattern roughly follows that of the department they are
to work in, you can assume pretty well they will laugh with their
colleagues. Bingo! They will fit in.
This is very simple. It assumes little and is brutally practical. People
will enjoy doing it. It does not assume the baggage of behaviourist
psychology (which I loath) and has minimal analysis. Its only significant
assumption is that people will get on better if they have a similar sense of
humor.
The jokes are already mass market tested otherwise they would no appear in
the media.
However, watch for copyright laws. In our case we had to employ
cartoonists, and some of the workforce to generate the humor as well as
getting permissions and having to pay for some of them from the mass media.
No bad, eh?! Oh, and yes, it works.
We major on simple answers and have applied a similar brutally simple
methodology to our forte which is the information landscape and the control
of corporate politics. (This is big stuff in 'Knowledge Management'). But
that is another story.
Regards,
CMC