The Valve http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/index/ en administrator@thevalve.org Copyright 2010 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Andrew Seal on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club Andrew Seal http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28960 Ostdiek, Quickly (because I want to get back to this later--I’m really enjoying this discussion), you’re right, I haven’t read Haack’s books, and it sounds like I should. That review, though, even if it is unrepresentative of her larger perspective on the history of pragmatism, does seem more interested in calling people names and enforcing credentials than it does in engaging with why Rorty might choose to write in the name of pragmatism, or why he chose Dewey and James as his models (and why Menand chose the selections he did for the anthology). I feel like that would have been a helpful review; if she had brought to bear her knowledge of the history of pragmatism to evaluate why it is useful as a banner to Rorty and Menand at this point, I think that would have been a stunning review, while also advancing her argument for why their claim to the name is spurious or disingenuous. This business of dismissing things as vulgarizations helps no one *but* The New Criterion. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Ostdiek,
Quickly (because I want to get back to this later--I’m really enjoying this discussion), you’re right, I haven’t read Haack’s books, and it sounds like I should. That review, though, even if it is unrepresentative of her larger perspective on the history of pragmatism, does seem more interested in calling people names and enforcing credentials than it does in engaging with why Rorty might choose to write in the name of pragmatism, or why he chose Dewey and James as his models (and why Menand chose the selections he did for the anthology). I feel like that would have been a helpful review; if she had brought to bear her knowledge of the history of pragmatism to evaluate why it is useful as a banner to Rorty and Menand at this point, I think that would have been a stunning review, while also advancing her argument for why their claim to the name is spurious or disingenuous. This business of dismissing things as vulgarizations helps no one *but* The New Criterion.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 ostdiek on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club ostdiek http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28959 Andrew, While I cannot disagree with your assessment of the ‘classical’ New Criterion style, I think you are missing Haack’s point about both Rorty and classical Pragmatism - the later term references a historical approach, referring to that specific set of ideations and the immediate milieu which birthed it, that unites James, Peirce, Wright, Holmes, Green, et. al. Classical Pragmatism was given new life by Dewey, Putnam, Quine, et. al - and depending on how tightly one defines things, this list may include some folks who use some Pragmatic argumentation, but reject some other aspect of it - Santayana, Royce, Lovejoy, et. al. The contemporary rock-stars <sic> of the field include Haack, but also Margolis and many others.  For all his skill, Rorty belongs in none of these camps. He claimed Pragmatism, he did not practice it. Likewise, his dismissal of Peirce was more than merely personal - he clearly did not understand the argumentation of the principle founder of the philosophy. For myself, I find Rorty evocative, but not particularly useful, but my training and occupation is philosophy of science, not literary theory. And for all I enjoyed Haack’s take down of Menand for his gross misrepresentation of Pragmatism, I am not one of those fools who dismisses all fields but my own ... There is a point to Rorty straddling his several stools, and I consider myself unqualified to speak to much of his work, but in terms of Pragmatism, the only real question is not whether, but how badly he misunderstood it. And with all respect, to argue that the author of Deviant Logic and Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate is “policing for orthodoxy” only shows that you haven’t read her (beyond this review).  The woman cannot be described as an absolutist in any coherent sense of the term. Seriously, it’s like pretending liberals want the imposition of sharia law… I read this review of Menand as contemptuous of Menand, not necessarily of Rorty. While it is clear (here and throughout her technical work) that she strongly disagrees with Rorty, she is decrying the vapidity of Menand’s shallow use of (and identification with) so-called Rortyism, rather than Rorty himself. She argues not that Rorty is vulgar, but that Menand has produced a vulgar Rortyism. And Charles, to call this a case of he-said, she-said, is absurd. There is an actual world, which “is SO … whether you or I or anybody thinks it is so or not.” This naturalism is as important to Peirce’s Pragmatism as it is to Quine’s epistemology. If something looks like ‘hesaidshesaid’, it usually means that you don’t know enough about the situation to make a call. The thing to do in this situation is, if possible, refrain from passing judgement until you find out more. Moreover, while you may ‘like’ (or, prefer the argumentation) of Rorty over Peirce, the fact remains that Peirce and James (not Haack) ‘labelled’ Pragmatism. These men and their entire cohort gave shape to the philosophy that goes by that term. It is a fact that Haack works within this tradition, and Rorty did not. (I know this is a naked assertion, but my post is long enough already) With all this said, I have no problem whatsoever with Rorty’s way of doing philosophy, I have less problem with his twinning together of philosophy and comp lit, and even less with his outlandish commentary - these all make for an interesting approach. But still, he simply isn’t particularly useful to me (and as Wright argued, “a theory which is utilized receives the highest possible certificate of truth"). But again, I’m not working the same field: if he is useful to you, then have at it Hoss! Absolutes of all kinds are dismissed by Pragmatism, including the pretense that Pragmatism is an absolute. But I do have problems with Rorty’s claim on the whole of Pragmatism, all the more so because his approach had so little to do with Pragmatism itself. And, with Haack, I have contempt for Menand’s work in the field. The Metaphysical Club is a good read, but gross revisionism all the same. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Andrew, While I cannot disagree with your assessment of the ‘classical’ New Criterion style, I think you are missing Haack’s point about both Rorty and classical Pragmatism - the later term references a historical approach, referring to that specific set of ideations and the immediate milieu which birthed it, that unites James, Peirce, Wright, Holmes, Green, et. al. Classical Pragmatism was given new life by Dewey, Putnam, Quine, et. al - and depending on how tightly one defines things, this list may include some folks who use some Pragmatic argumentation, but reject some other aspect of it - Santayana, Royce, Lovejoy, et. al. The contemporary rock-stars <sic> of the field include Haack, but also Margolis and many others.  For all his skill, Rorty belongs in none of these camps. He claimed Pragmatism, he did not practice it. Likewise, his dismissal of Peirce was more than merely personal - he clearly did not understand the argumentation of the principle founder of the philosophy.
For myself, I find Rorty evocative, but not particularly useful, but my training and occupation is philosophy of science, not literary theory. And for all I enjoyed Haack’s take down of Menand for his gross misrepresentation of Pragmatism, I am not one of those fools who dismisses all fields but my own ... There is a point to Rorty straddling his several stools, and I consider myself unqualified to speak to much of his work, but in terms of Pragmatism, the only real question is not whether, but how badly he misunderstood it.
And with all respect, to argue that the author of Deviant Logic and Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate is “policing for orthodoxy” only shows that you haven’t read her (beyond this review).  The woman cannot be described as an absolutist in any coherent sense of the term. Seriously, it’s like pretending liberals want the imposition of sharia law…
I read this review of Menand as contemptuous of Menand, not necessarily of Rorty. While it is clear (here and throughout her technical work) that she strongly disagrees with Rorty, she is decrying the vapidity of Menand’s shallow use of (and identification with) so-called Rortyism, rather than Rorty himself. She argues not that Rorty is vulgar, but that Menand has produced a vulgar Rortyism.
And Charles, to call this a case of he-said, she-said, is absurd. There is an actual world, which “is SO … whether you or I or anybody thinks it is so or not.” This naturalism is as important to Peirce’s Pragmatism as it is to Quine’s epistemology. If something looks like ‘hesaidshesaid’, it usually means that you don’t know enough about the situation to make a call. The thing to do in this situation is, if possible, refrain from passing judgement until you find out more.
Moreover, while you may ‘like’ (or, prefer the argumentation) of Rorty over Peirce, the fact remains that Peirce and James (not Haack) ‘labelled’ Pragmatism. These men and their entire cohort gave shape to the philosophy that goes by that term. It is a fact that Haack works within this tradition, and Rorty did not. (I know this is a naked assertion, but my post is long enough already) With all this said, I have no problem whatsoever with Rorty’s way of doing philosophy, I have less problem with his twinning together of philosophy and comp lit, and even less with his outlandish commentary - these all make for an interesting approach. But still, he simply isn’t particularly useful to me (and as Wright argued, “a theory which is utilized receives the highest possible certificate of truth"). But again, I’m not working the same field: if he is useful to you, then have at it Hoss! Absolutes of all kinds are dismissed by Pragmatism, including the pretense that Pragmatism is an absolute.
But I do have problems with Rorty’s claim on the whole of Pragmatism, all the more so because his approach had so little to do with Pragmatism itself. And, with Haack, I have contempt for Menand’s work in the field. The Metaphysical Club is a good read, but gross revisionism all the same.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Charles Wolverton on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club Charles Wolverton http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28957 Andrew - I googled the “Davidson approves” quote and got only four hits - all Haack. So, at least in that instance it appears that “quote mining” is a legitimate charge. Yes, Putnam’s essay in “R and his Critics” leaves no doubt that circa 2000 they remained seriously divergent. And R’s response suggests resignation to that “reality” (if you’ll pardon the expression). Thanks for your helpful reply - C {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Andrew - I googled the “Davidson approves” quote and got only four hits - all Haack. So, at least in that instance it appears that “quote mining” is a legitimate charge.

Yes, Putnam’s essay in “R and his Critics” leaves no doubt that circa 2000 they remained seriously divergent. And R’s response suggests resignation to that “reality” (if you’ll pardon the expression).

Thanks for your helpful reply - C

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Shelley on: Obama Gets His Report Card on Ed Policy Shelley http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/obama_gets_his_report_card_on_ed_policy/#28956 Thank you for saying this! And as is said in the book Life Inc., an educational system that rewards competition fosters, not excellence, but just more competition. Ultimately demoralizing and patronizing for teachers who already feel plenty of both. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Thank you for saying this! And as is said in the book Life Inc., an educational system that rewards competition fosters, not excellence, but just more competition. Ultimately demoralizing and patronizing for teachers who already feel plenty of both.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Andrew Seal on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club Andrew Seal http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28955 Charles, The expression was a little extreme and meant to be humorous. What I meant, though, was something like the quote Haack pulled about Davidson: “it suits my purposes to define pragmatism as the attempt to do something Davidson approves of.” (After doing a little digging, I actually found that this quote comes from a {still?} unpublished typescript, and Haack’s used it more than once--she refers to it in Philosophy and Literature 20.2, which is where I saw the citation. Not that there’s anything wrong with using unpublished material, but I think the provenance adds a little to your comments about how selective Haack is being in order to undermine Rorty.) A better example of what I mean would be something like the article “Putnam and the Relativist Menace” (Journal of Philosophy 90.9 {Sept. 1993}). Rorty doesn’t really kiss up to Putnam (at least not compared to in the opening paragraph of this), but what he does is seek to minimize the differences between Putnam and himself to the extent that it begins to seem a little like co-optation. He’s not so much resolving the sticking points as trying to show that if Putnam understood Rorty correctly, they’d be practically of the same mind. This is a little comical when the person on the other end of this mind-meld is clearly intent on continuing to disagree with Rorty. On the other hand, for the reason you bring up that many people tend to take some of Rorty’s more outrageous statements as the entirety of his thought and ignore anything more carefully argued, Rorty often has a good point when he’s trying to show that there is more common ground between him and his interlocutor than the other person (or the reader) may realize. I think Rorty tends to overplay this common ground in places like the aforementioned essay, but he’s not entirely wrong to try to do it. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Charles,
The expression was a little extreme and meant to be humorous. What I meant, though, was something like the quote Haack pulled about Davidson: “it suits my purposes to define pragmatism as the attempt to do something Davidson approves of.”

(After doing a little digging, I actually found that this quote comes from a {still?} unpublished typescript, and Haack’s used it more than once--she refers to it in Philosophy and Literature 20.2, which is where I saw the citation. Not that there’s anything wrong with using unpublished material, but I think the provenance adds a little to your comments about how selective Haack is being in order to undermine Rorty.)

A better example of what I mean would be something like the article “Putnam and the Relativist Menace” (Journal of Philosophy 90.9 {Sept. 1993}). Rorty doesn’t really kiss up to Putnam (at least not compared to in the opening paragraph of this), but what he does is seek to minimize the differences between Putnam and himself to the extent that it begins to seem a little like co-optation. He’s not so much resolving the sticking points as trying to show that if Putnam understood Rorty correctly, they’d be practically of the same mind. This is a little comical when the person on the other end of this mind-meld is clearly intent on continuing to disagree with Rorty.

On the other hand, for the reason you bring up that many people tend to take some of Rorty’s more outrageous statements as the entirety of his thought and ignore anything more carefully argued, Rorty often has a good point when he’s trying to show that there is more common ground between him and his interlocutor than the other person (or the reader) may realize. I think Rorty tends to overplay this common ground in places like the aforementioned essay, but he’s not entirely wrong to try to do it.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Charles Wolverton on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club Charles Wolverton http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28954 I rank properly labeling people very low on a list of things worth my time. Also ranked very low is reading assessments of a prolific and widely - though far from universally - respected writer based on abbreviated out-of-context quotes. True, Rorty set himself up for that by apparently enjoying saying somewhat shocking things; but some of those considered most outlandish - eg, “truth is what your peers let you get away with” - are shorthand for well-argued (not to say necessarily correct) positions. But one assumes that knowledgeable people of integrity will take that into account when critiquing his actual positions. I know that assumption was proven wrong by Simon Blackburn in “Truth: A Guide” and suspect the same based on the “he said-he said” comparison with Peirce in Prof Haack’s review of Menand’s book. Any time a discussion of Rorty’s positions seems structured so as to intentionally make him appear foolish, one has to wonder; even his most severe critics apparently respect his intellect. Those who are absolutists won’t like Rorty and will label him a relativist (pejorative sense); those who aren’t and for whom his positions resonate may - if they are honest - acquiesce to that label, though in a non-pejorative sense. I infer from some phrases in the review that Prof Haack is among the former, and in any event doesn’t like what Rorty says, that he high-jacked her label, or both. I am the among the latter, and having no vested interest in being able to correctly sort philosophers into “-ism” boxes, couldn’t care less which one Rorty - or anyone else - should go in. Just tell me where his arguments go wrong. ========================= Andrew: Could you elaborate “herding ... by complimenting” a bit? I am aware of Rorty’s (mis?)use of ideas from Davidson and Quine, but thinking someone “got it right” and saying so, and your phrase are clearly quite different things. And if he meant his response to Putnam in “Rorty and His Critics” to be complimentary, he clearly missed a lesson or two in “Sucking-up 101”. Tnx - Charles {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} I rank properly labeling people very low on a list of things worth my time. Also ranked very low is reading assessments of a prolific and widely - though far from universally - respected writer based on abbreviated out-of-context quotes. True, Rorty set himself up for that by apparently enjoying saying somewhat shocking things; but some of those considered most outlandish - eg, “truth is what your peers let you get away with” - are shorthand for well-argued (not to say necessarily correct) positions. But one assumes that knowledgeable people of integrity will take that into account when critiquing his actual positions. I know that assumption was proven wrong by Simon Blackburn in “Truth: A Guide” and suspect the same based on the “he said-he said” comparison with Peirce in Prof Haack’s review of Menand’s book. Any time a discussion of Rorty’s positions seems structured so as to intentionally make him appear foolish, one has to wonder; even his most severe critics apparently respect his intellect.

Those who are absolutists won’t like Rorty and will label him a relativist (pejorative sense); those who aren’t and for whom his positions resonate may - if they are honest - acquiesce to that label, though in a non-pejorative sense. I infer from some phrases in the review that Prof Haack is among the former, and in any event doesn’t like what Rorty says, that he high-jacked her label, or both. I am the among the latter, and having no vested interest in being able to correctly sort philosophers into “-ism” boxes, couldn’t care less which one Rorty - or anyone else - should go in. Just tell me where his arguments go wrong.
=========================

Andrew: Could you elaborate “herding ... by complimenting” a bit? I am aware of Rorty’s (mis?)use of ideas from Davidson and Quine, but thinking someone “got it right” and saying so, and your phrase are clearly quite different things. And if he meant his response to Putnam in “Rorty and His Critics” to be complimentary, he clearly missed a lesson or two in “Sucking-up 101”.

Tnx - Charles

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Andrew Seal on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club Andrew Seal http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28953 Ostdiek, You’re right--it was too much to call it a “Dewey thing"--I just got excited. But really, I wasn’t trying to say that “invidious” was a pet word of Dewey’s, just that it’s present across a number of his works, and if you’re primed for it (as someone, like Menand or like me, who is coming to Dewey through Rorty might be), you might notice those instances of the word. Sorry if that doesn’t meet the burden of insightfulness for you. I understand the objections to what Harold Bloom would no doubt call Rorty’s “strong misreadings” of James and Dewey. And Haack is absolutely right that he writes Peirce out of the picture largely because he doesn’t like him. Even more, I find Rorty’s belief that he can herd other philosophers (Davidson, Quine, Putnam) into his neo-pragmatist camp simply by complimenting them pretty hilarious. But I also find Haack’s purist version of “classical pragmatism” rather ironically contrary to pragmatism’s spirit. Policing for orthodoxy in the manner that this review demonstrates is exactly the kind of attitude that has made Rorty’s version of pragmatism attractive to many; whatever else you can say about his treatment of his sources, you never get the feeling that his idea of an insult is “you’re just a vulgarization of X!” I also want to say that I love Haack’s throwaway allusion to Mussolini in that review--talk about “classical” New Criterion technique--trying to convince readers that if you scratch a “relativist” he’ll bleed fascism is basically their raison d’être. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Ostdiek,
You’re right--it was too much to call it a “Dewey thing"--I just got excited. But really, I wasn’t trying to say that “invidious” was a pet word of Dewey’s, just that it’s present across a number of his works, and if you’re primed for it (as someone, like Menand or like me, who is coming to Dewey through Rorty might be), you might notice those instances of the word. Sorry if that doesn’t meet the burden of insightfulness for you.

I understand the objections to what Harold Bloom would no doubt call Rorty’s “strong misreadings” of James and Dewey. And Haack is absolutely right that he writes Peirce out of the picture largely because he doesn’t like him. Even more, I find Rorty’s belief that he can herd other philosophers (Davidson, Quine, Putnam) into his neo-pragmatist camp simply by complimenting them pretty hilarious.

But I also find Haack’s purist version of “classical pragmatism” rather ironically contrary to pragmatism’s spirit. Policing for orthodoxy in the manner that this review demonstrates is exactly the kind of attitude that has made Rorty’s version of pragmatism attractive to many; whatever else you can say about his treatment of his sources, you never get the feeling that his idea of an insult is “you’re just a vulgarization of X!”

I also want to say that I love Haack’s throwaway allusion to Mussolini in that review--talk about “classical” New Criterion technique--trying to convince readers that if you scratch a “relativist” he’ll bleed fascism is basically their raison d’être.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Aaron Bady on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club Aaron Bady http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28952 Nothing to add. But I want “Andrew Seal does stylistic close-readings of critical texts” to be a continuing series. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Nothing to add. But I want “Andrew Seal does stylistic close-readings of critical texts” to be a continuing series.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 ostdiek on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club ostdiek http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28951 This is interesting, but not particularly insightful. And to suggest that ‘invidious’ is a Dewey thing, evidenced by a few instances of his use of the term out of the thousands upon thousands of pages that the man published, is absurd. But this is in keeping with Menand’s approach to philosophy. There is little in any of Menand’s writings that would suggest that he understands the philosophy he writes so tersely about. Moreover, Rorty’s ‘invidious’ use of the phrase “we Pragmatists” does not make him a pragmatist. Both of these men have traded the focused study of ‘relatedness’ which lies at the core of Pragmatism, for the candy floss of ‘relativism’. Some one who does understand Pragmatism, and its import to logic, is Susan Haack. Her take on Menand is revealing: http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/rortyism-haack-3261 But back to the point of this post, a distinction is invidious if making it causes harm, i.e., the supposed mind/body problem that has beguiled philosophy for centuries ... In Pragmatic Ontology, there is no such problem as the two are aspects of a single event, a living organism minding its environment. This is a major point of Dewey’s Reflex Arc, and can easily be discerned in the pluralism of James, the ontogenetic semiotics of Peirce, the psychozoology of Wright, etcetera. My advice for anyone interested in this era is to read Joseph Brent or Robert Richardson - or the original essays of James Peirce, et. al, most of which are online. And if you are interested in the ongoing development of Pragmatism, then read Haack, or Sandra Rosenthal, or Charlene Haddock Seigfried, or some other of the many thinkers working the field today. Menand, by contrast, is a journalist. Whatever his skill as a writer, it is overshadowed by his lack of comprehension of his subject matter. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} This is interesting, but not particularly insightful. And to suggest that ‘invidious’ is a Dewey thing, evidenced by a few instances of his use of the term out of the thousands upon thousands of pages that the man published, is absurd. But this is in keeping with Menand’s approach to philosophy. There is little in any of Menand’s writings that would suggest that he understands the philosophy he writes so tersely about. Moreover, Rorty’s ‘invidious’ use of the phrase “we Pragmatists” does not make him a pragmatist. Both of these men have traded the focused study of ‘relatedness’ which lies at the core of Pragmatism, for the candy floss of ‘relativism’. Some one who does understand Pragmatism, and its import to logic, is Susan Haack. Her take on Menand is revealing:

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/rortyism-haack-3261

But back to the point of this post, a distinction is invidious if making it causes harm, i.e., the supposed mind/body problem that has beguiled philosophy for centuries ... In Pragmatic Ontology, there is no such problem as the two are aspects of a single event, a living organism minding its environment. This is a major point of Dewey’s Reflex Arc, and can easily be discerned in the pluralism of James, the ontogenetic semiotics of Peirce, the psychozoology of Wright, etcetera. My advice for anyone interested in this era is to read Joseph Brent or Robert Richardson - or the original essays of James Peirce, et. al, most of which are online. And if you are interested in the ongoing development of Pragmatism, then read Haack, or Sandra Rosenthal, or Charlene Haddock Seigfried, or some other of the many thinkers working the field today. Menand, by contrast, is a journalist. Whatever his skill as a writer, it is overshadowed by his lack of comprehension of his subject matter.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Andrew Seal on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club Andrew Seal http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28946 Good call--according to Google Books, there are also seven instances! It’s also, to a lesser extent, a Dewey thing; I found two in Dewey’s Art as Experience, two in Experience and Nature, two in Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, and well, it’s certainly not an uncommon word for him, although probably not too noticeable unless one is looking for it. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Good call--according to Google Books, there are also seven instances!
It’s also, to a lesser extent, a Dewey thing; I found two in Dewey’s Art as Experience, two in Experience and Nature, two in Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, and well, it’s certainly not an uncommon word for him, although probably not too noticeable unless one is looking for it.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Charles Wolverton on: Invidiousness and Parentheticals: Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club Charles Wolverton http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/invidiousness_and_parentheticals_louis_menands_the_metaphysical_club/#28945 The connection between “invidious” and Rorty may be more direct than just its applicability to some targets of pragmatists in general and Rorty in particular. I just finished “Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature” in which Rorty finds a somewhat irritatingly large number of things “invidious”. (I of course didn’t count but would guess at least seven). Perhaps Menand read that book and concluded that frequent injection of the word is a requirement for writing credibly about pragmatism. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} The connection between “invidious” and Rorty may be more direct than just its applicability to some targets of pragmatists in general and Rorty in particular. I just finished “Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature” in which Rorty finds a somewhat irritatingly large number of things “invidious”. (I of course didn’t count but would guess at least seven). Perhaps Menand read that book and concluded that frequent injection of the word is a requirement for writing credibly about pragmatism.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Adam Roberts on: Time to get on with it! Adam Roberts http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/time_to_get_on_with_it/#28942 I’ve had a ghostly few months, Valve-wise, and understand your position here.  You’ve been a great Valver, and I’m very glad to have been introduced to your posts, your humane and wise critical intelligence and yourself. I shall certainly keep checking out Novel Readings. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} I’ve had a ghostly few months, Valve-wise, and understand your position here.  You’ve been a great Valver, and I’m very glad to have been introduced to your posts, your humane and wise critical intelligence and yourself. I shall certainly keep checking out Novel Readings.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Paulus on: Menologium Isoldei Beati Paulus http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/menologium_isoldei_beati/#28938 I read another novel called “Attila’s Treasure”, in which the author refers to Aryans.  He may have spelled it Arians.  Very interesting to have found this site; I searched Monologium of Isolde” to see if Baxter made it up or what… Thanks for all the info. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} I read another novel called “Attila’s Treasure”, in which the author refers to Aryans.  He may have spelled it Arians.  Very interesting to have found this site; I searched Monologium of Isolde” to see if Baxter made it up or what… Thanks for all the info.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Rich Puchalsky on: Time to get on with it! Rich Puchalsky http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/time_to_get_on_with_it/#28937 I also liked the Adam Bede event, and it was too bad that they didn’t happen again after the Bronte book. I think that the real problem isn’t the ever-recurring questions per se, it’s that so many of them have simple answers in the negative.  Not a literal “no”, but looking back at The Valve, it seems to me that it went through a sort of mini Tech Bubble: are lots of things going to change about the future of academic writing / publishing / the humanities?  And the answer was no.  Well, there’s the ongoing change from tenured to untenured work, but there the question was, could that change itself change to some better regime.  And the answer there appears to be no as well. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} I also liked the Adam Bede event, and it was too bad that they didn’t happen again after the Bronte book.

I think that the real problem isn’t the ever-recurring questions per se, it’s that so many of them have simple answers in the negative.  Not a literal “no”, but looking back at The Valve, it seems to me that it went through a sort of mini Tech Bubble: are lots of things going to change about the future of academic writing / publishing / the humanities?  And the answer was no.  Well, there’s the ongoing change from tenured to untenured work, but there the question was, could that change itself change to some better regime.  And the answer there appears to be no as well.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Sue G-J on: Tweeting Art Sue G-J http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/tweeting_art/#28929 ’ Criticism will never ever be the experience of the text.’ Bill Benzon, you are my hero! How far must we get from that tug in the gut before someone says ‘enough, already’? You can teach criticism but you can’t teach someone to feel. Trite but true. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} ’ Criticism will never ever be the experience of the text.’

Bill Benzon, you are my hero! How far must we get from that tug in the gut before someone says ‘enough, already’?

You can teach criticism but you can’t teach someone to feel. Trite but true.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Sue G-J on: Time to get on with it! Sue G-J http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/time_to_get_on_with_it/#28928 Hear, hear, Bill, well said. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Hear, hear, Bill, well said.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Bill Benzon on: Time to get on with it! Bill Benzon http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/time_to_get_on_with_it/#28927 Sad to see you go, Rohan. It was good having you around. & I’m glad you’ve found another home for your blogging activities. I notice you’re still on the masthead as a current author. Should we set up a betting pool on when, if ever, that will change? {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Sad to see you go, Rohan. It was good having you around. & I’m glad you’ve found another home for your blogging activities.

I notice you’re still on the masthead as a current author. Should we set up a betting pool on when, if ever, that will change?

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Sue G-J on: Time to get on with it! Sue G-J http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/time_to_get_on_with_it/#28926 Hi Rohan, I haven’t visited The Valve for ages but just clicked on and read your sad news. I’m surprised there are no comments. I would just like to say that your Adam Bede project was one of the most enjoyable online events I’ve ever taken part in so thanks for that and I wish you all the best in your future ventures. Kind regards, Sue {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Hi Rohan,

I haven’t visited The Valve for ages but just clicked on and read your sad news. I’m surprised there are no comments.

I would just like to say that your Adam Bede project was one of the most enjoyable online events I’ve ever taken part in so thanks for that and I wish you all the best in your future ventures.

Kind regards,

Sue

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 jeb on: Fans: A New Public for Literary & Cultural Studies jeb http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/fans_a_new_public_for_literary_cultural_studies/#28909 Bill. Official Edgar Rice Burroughs tribute site. Refer to the page of tarzan fan, he is an academic from science rather than art, who has constructed and translated a wide range of interesting sources for possible influences on Burroughs. http://www.erbzine.com/mag18/1801.html {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} Bill.

Official Edgar Rice Burroughs tribute site.

Refer to the page of tarzan fan, he is an academic from science rather than art, who has constructed and translated a wide range of interesting sources for possible influences on Burroughs.

http://www.erbzine.com/mag18/1801.html

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00 Roy on: Cushy for Whom? Roy http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/cushy_for_whom/#28896 If anyone’s checking, the links to “Over One Million Served” seem bad. {categories backspace="1"}{category_name}, {/categories} If anyone’s checking, the links to “Over One Million Served” seem bad.

]]> 2010-08-31T19:57:00-05:00