25 thoughts on “Utilitarian Review 6/14/13”

1. I would write for both or either of the suggested roundtables.

2. All right; James R. expressed interest in the DeForge one…and I know Jacob’s a fan too…so that’s 3 folks for that one already…

3. Citing Alain Badiou as an authority on analytic philosophy is a pretty clear indication you don’t know what they’re talking about. (Sure, they also mentioned Wittgenstein, Carnap and Rorty — as if that’s a well-rounded sampling.) I say this as an occasional reader of Badiou and as a non-analytic (although some of my best friends are …). Not all analytic philosophers believe that science should drive philosophy. I’d be surprised if that were anything but a minority stance. Hawkings, however, probably has the same dismissive view of psychology, anthropology and most of biology. (Mathematicians have dismissed Badiou for his focus on a mathematical foundation to philosophy which stops somewhere in the early 20th century of that discipline.)

   I doubt the profession of philosophy will last much longer.

4. “they’re” –> “you’re”: cut and paste kills me every time.

5. First, you’re right about Hawking and Analytic philosophy. And you’re correct in saying that people criticize Badiou for his Cantor fetishism.

   The idea that the profession of philosophy won’t last much longer is pretty silly to me. It’s a legacy profession; people will always want their kids to learn Plato and Aristotle just so they can know that their kids learned about Plato and Aristotle. Academic philosophy departments may be shrinking, but the idea that they will entirely dissipate is pretty outlandish.

   But I assume that what you meant as the “profession” of philosophy is something like the philosopher as public intellectual/well read authority? Because that philosopher died a long time ago, at least in the United States.

6. I don’t know about that…we still have public philosophers, they just tend to be European imports. Zizek’s a rock star.

   Analytic philosophy seems designed to prevent folks from being public intellectuals in some ways; it’s trying to professionalize philosophy by constricting it, which makes it hard to speak to the public.

   There is Stanley Hauerwas, though, who is in the analytic tradition.

   Wonder if Jones’ll have something to say….

7. Nah, I was thinking of the paid profession of philosophy (granted, the philosophically inclined public intellectual is an even more questionable choice for vocation — George Scialabba is worth a look). Philosophy seems to be first to go during budget crunches. It’ll probably hold on the longest at the most elite private colleges, sure, but I don’t share your optimism that its death is outlandish. The prospects for pure science ain’t so hot, either.

8. I doubt philosophy’ll disappear altogether. Though honestly I don’t know what’s going to happen to higher education in the US. The galumphing cost increases and move to more and more adjuncts seems like it can’t be sustainable forever. Not sure what’ll replace it though.

9. Noah, Zizek is beloved by the crowds as a sort of entertainer, but I don’t think he’s informing a lot of people’s opinions.

   Hell, he’s not even taken really seriously by most of the people that I interact with. And that’s saying something since I go to the goddamn New School for Social Research.

   But anyway, I take it back. Dan Dennett is a massive public intellectual today.

10. Or as I like to call him, Danny Dennett.

11. I think Zizek is great. I’ve learned a ton from him. Very fun to think about and engage with.

    I really like Badiou as well.

12. Hey, I’m not saying that Zizek doesn’t inform my positions. A quick look at the Spook will reveal that he definitely does. All I’m saying is that the general public takes him to be more of a novelty than a real source of insight.

    And the two philosophers that are most often accused of being charlatans at my institution are Zizek and Badiou. People think they make our tradition look bad.

13. I think that’s just analytic vs. European traditions, mostly. Probably anti-Marxism too.

    There are analytic philosophers I like as well. Sarah Coakley is really interesting. I like Alastair MacIntyre….

14. Well, The New School is about as purebred Continental as it gets. We’ve got an Italian anarchist and Simon Critchley on the roster so I’m not sure that’s what’s at work.

15. Noah, are you forgetting Derrida, Heidegger, Deleuze or any number of those guys? “Hard to speak to the public” is their style. I’m not one who takes a side on the divide, though. There are plenty of analytic writers who are equally difficult to read, but impenetrability isn’t as widely defended as a virtue by analytic thinkers. Clarity of argument is prized, whereas that’s clearly not so important among many continental types. It’s not too hard to find a Judith Butler or whoever arguing that garbled prose and an increasingly rarefied terminology make the reader think harder not only about what’s being said, but how it’s being said. That was pretty much the typical deconstructionist response to anyone criticizing their methodology (I know, “it’s not a method”).

16. I really hated the Critchley book I read (Infinitely Demanding). Academic anarchism is a joke, ain’t it? He’s probably a good teacher, though. He’s very clear.

17. I haven’t taken a Critchley class.

    That being said, some intellectual anarchists have anarchist bona fides, and some do not. I have a feeling I know what you mean when you say it’s a “joke”, but I suspect you’re being a little overly dismissive.

18. Also, Zizek and Critchley had a tussle a few years back (which I highly recommend reading if intellectual catfights are your thing). Since the latter teaches at the New School and probably has a good deal of sway on opinions there, then it’s no surprise that Zizek and Badiou are deemed jokes.

19. I’ll try to end this particular strain of comments before it becomes too insular (though I suspect I’m too late), but a good deal of the animus comes from people who take Hegel very seriously and think that Zizek’s Hegel is a poor one. People dislike Badiou because they take mathematics very seriously and they think that he is not.

20. Yeah, I’m being overly dismissive. That’s true. But that conference by academic anarchists on youtube rubbed me the wrong way. Kind of like Sean Penn being pals with Fidel Castro, you know? (That, too, is dismissive, but I can’t help myself, sometimes.)

21. He is not taking mathematics very seriously*

22. “If you think comics is sexist, you should see gaming.”

    We’re better than gaming! Go team comics!

23. Charles’ first line in his first comment is exactly right. That article’s characterization of “analytic philosophy” is silly, one that stopped being apt at some time in the 1960s. But I guess one advantage of using the existential and spontaneous creative powers of thought is that you don’t have to actually know what you’re talking about.

    Of course, I would say that, because I am exactly one of those science-loving, democracy-hating analists (sic) that he’s targeting…

    (charles, on philosophy being driven by science: you’re right that it’s a minority position, but it’s worth noting that it is a large minority. granted, the sample ive been exposed to isn’t a representative sample, since birds of a feather…still, according to that chalmers survey, just under 50% of philosophers identify as naturalists, although that doesn’t necessarily mean they buy into the Quinean philosophy-should-be-continuous-with-the-natural-sciences program; actually, probably, lots of them don’t)

    Incidentally, apart from Dennett, Peter Singer is another very well-known public intellectual from the “analytic” tradition.

    In any case, philosophy has been dead at least since Nietzsche. Unfortunately, it keeps coming back to life, over and over, always just in time for yet another philosopher to declare it dead again. La philosophie est mort, vive la philosophie.

24. I am totally up to doing a bit on DeForge. And I think I might try to squeeze some public philosophy in there somehow. Dibs on Ranciere?

25. Well, that’s you, Owen, Jacob, and James…which is a week worth of posts. So maybe we should do this; I’ll be in touch soonish….

Comments are closed.