It's Perpetual Backwards Day At Universities
Students -- in a number of university courses -- are now regularly encouraged not to think; not to question; just to lap up the material like dogs.
Columbia University undergrad Coleman Hughes writes at Heterodox Academy of a Tale of Two Columbia Classes:
As a second-year undergrad student at Columbia University, I've noticed that two of my courses this semester differ greatly. One is an introductory philosophy course called Methods and Problems of Philosophical Thought, in which we read classic papers in the philosophy of mind, identity, and morality. The other course is called Philosophy and Feminism, in which we learn the core principles of intersectional feminism, queer theory, and feminist epistemology.Leaving aside what is taught, the courses differ greatly in how they're taught. In Methods and Problems, we'll read some philosopher--say, Thomas Nagel--and learn his arguments well enough to repeat them, and then spend much of the class exposing any weaknesses that Nagel's argument might have. We don't hold anyone's views as sacred, or even special. We debate with one another; I even argue with the professor at times. The prevailing mood encourages friendly but lively debate. It's challenging, good-natured, and fun.
Every Monday and Wednesday I leave Methods and Problems and go straight to Philosophy and Feminism where the mood is strikingly different. We read some philosopher--say, Foucault--and learn his arguments, but rarely does a single person even ask a question, to say nothing of making a critique. On the exceedingly rare occasion that a student asks a question that could potentially contradict what's being taught, the professor has a mysterious way of answering without ever suggesting that the argument could simply have a weakness.
Of the seven philosophy courses I've taken at Columbia so far, not a single one has operated even close to this way--philosophy professors are always the first to point out logical weaknesses, strong counterarguments, and alternative points of view, even when they fundamentally agree with the course material. In this class, I got the sense that the professor was wedded to the material, such that a critique of the material would have been synonymous with a critique of her. As hyperbolic as this might sound, voicing a strong pushback against any idea that the Professor favored was nearly unthinkable.
You can't actually can't really question Foucault because it's a big steaming pile of convoluted shit. As is Judith Butler. A Judith Butler quote from a PJ Media piece by Toni Airaksinen:
Judith Butler:
"Gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender creates the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all."
Uh, right.
Fixed it for you, Judith Butler: "Gibberish is not a fact, the various acts of gibberish creates the idea of gibberish, and without those acts, there would be no gibberish at all."
— Amy Alkon (@amyalkon) January 17, 2018
On a side note, Butler has the grammatical acumen of a desk lamp. https://t.co/KdVw3zbjBh
Heterodox via @SteveStuWill
Fortunately, one may reject such arguments and save beaucoup money by not enrolling in such classes, or such universities.
Unfortunately, such thought gets imprinted upon the watery brains of those who choose to do so, and we have to live among such people.
Fortunately, one has the right to tell them, "You're wrong, and you're likely stupid to boot. Here is why."
Kevin at February 1, 2018 11:35 PM
In an effort to get acquainted with what the cool kids are "into" nowadays, I've watched about a half-dozen Peterson videos in the last week. Most of those hours were lost, forever... Like tears in the rain under the glittering Tannhauser stargate.
But here's two minutes of interesting speculation about obfuscatory gibberish.
Crid at February 2, 2018 1:18 AM
I'd be more concerned with the fact that this student is taking seven courses in philosophy. Unless he is a philosophy major, no one needs that many.
I took Intro to Philosophy in college to fulfill a GER and never looked back.
Patrick at February 2, 2018 2:05 AM
I know more through years of reading, thinking, and going to academic science conferences than I ever would have learned in school. My "science-help" book, Unf*ckology, is a product of that, as is my science-based column.
I started out by reading the big people in psychology and therapy. Not being taught by a professor worshipful of, say, Freud, I immediately saw that he just made shit up.
Because I didn't go through the system and get a Ph.D., (on the advice of Albert Ellis, the late co-founder of cognitive therapy, who was a fan of my column), I am transdisciplinary in a way professors aren't and can't be.
For this book, I didn't understand the brain research I was reading. Okey-dokey -- I read an entire cognitive neuroscience textbook by Michael Gazzaniga (probably the clearest and best writer on the subject) and his colleagues. Next up is a better understanding of endocrinology. That textbook is, as they say, in the mail.
Amy Alkon at February 2, 2018 5:42 AM
Perhaps even then.
What does one do with a philosophy major?
What is the last big human problem, existential or otherwise, that philosophy has solved?
Conan the Grammarian at February 2, 2018 6:56 AM
You can't actually can't really question Foucault
Editorial clean up on aisle one! I really am having trouble deciphering that bit. I must need more coffee.
"You're wrong, and you're likely stupid to boot. Here is why."
Geez, Kevin, tone down on the macroaggressions. The snowflakes will melt away in the face of such hate speech.
As for obfuscatory gibberish, that is the method by which a good wordsmith can tell you to go to hell and for you to be happy to start your trip.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 2, 2018 7:10 AM
@Conan and Patrick: I’d wager pre-law. I recall Philosophy being pitched as fitting undergrad degree for aspiring attorneys.
ahw at February 2, 2018 7:28 AM
"What does one do with a philosophy major?"
If you're a rich kid, you're going into investment banking, since you were going to do that anyway.
If you're a poor kid, your going to be make morning coffee for the people who studied accounting at Directional State University.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at February 2, 2018 7:47 AM
Why would anyone waste their money and time on any college course with the word feminism in the title?
Jay at February 2, 2018 8:05 AM
> What does one do with a
> philosophy major?
(We've actually covered this.)
Philosophy is a fine thing to study, thoughtful and demanding, especially if you want to know how it works.
Crid at February 2, 2018 8:47 AM
What is the last big human problem, existential or otherwise, that philosophy has solved?
Conan the Grammarian at February 2, 2018 6:56 AM
Well Philosphy certainly isnt engineering, but it beats the hell out of feminist theory as a dsicipline for establising a moral compass in life.
The Stoics are back in fashion now. Most likely a good thing.
Isab at February 2, 2018 8:48 AM
Philosophy is fundamentally about questioning - existence, accepted schools of thought, and anything else upon which our social construct rests.
Feminism is fundamentally about bending everything - physical laws, social structures, economics, biology - to the whim of whatever feminist school of thought is the loudest
Asking a philosopher to justify his or her school of thought is like asking a person to breathe, argument is what they live for. Asking a feminist to justify his or her school of thought is the exact opposite - it's an imposition, it's an insult, a slap in the face.
So, if women didn't have babies, humans would reproduce by mitosis? It's only the act of having babies that make them women; and, by default, divides humans into men and women?
Even if you undergo sexual re-assignment surgery, you spent your formative years awash in the opposite gender's hormone. If you are a man and become a woman, you never experienced the things through a woman's point of view that influence a woman's thought processes and outlook. Same with being a woman who becomes a man.
So, simply saying you identity as the opposite gender and acting like you see others of that gender acting does not make you the opposite gender. Gender is not as fluid as these folks think it is.
And NYC's Baskin Robbins -esque 31 genders are not based on biology, but on actions. Androgyny is a gender to NYC's Commission on Human Rights.
More power to you if you find you were born the wrong gender and make the actual physical switch; but simply putting on a new outfit does not change your gender, no matter how much you want it to.
Gender is not actions, it's biology. And nature is a mother.
Conan the Grammarian at February 2, 2018 8:55 AM
No argument here about studying philosophy. I'm a fan.
Conan the Grammarian at February 2, 2018 8:57 AM
> Feminism is fundamentally
> about bending everything
Only the academic kind. The feminists you meet on the street and at parties are excellent folks.
Paglia talks about this in the Peterson video linked above. In the 60's and 70's, English & Lit departments were pressured by external groups to develop courses of study to concentrate on women's writing, theretofore underrepresented in syllabi. A reasonable request, but academic department heads [A.] had no clue, [B.] knew that the money they'd be spending to make the problem go away was never their own and [C.] that nobody would ever call their bluff (because it wasn't nobody's money, either). So bodies were hired to fill offices and lecture podia, whether or not the women knew their way around a typewriter... And here we are.
Crid at February 2, 2018 10:18 AM
It's remarkable that Patrick knows precisely how many philosophy courses other people need.
Crid at February 2, 2018 10:24 AM
ah sorry, here is the link to earlier discussion
Crid at February 2, 2018 10:25 AM
Geez, Kevin, tone down on the macroaggressions. The snowflakes will melt away in the face of such hate speech.
I take my cue from the late Florence King, who responded to a POSITIVE review of one of her books with a letter to the reviewer. It began:
You do not know how to write a book review. I do. Here are your faults.
Kevin at February 2, 2018 11:33 AM
What does one do with a philosophy major?
What is the last big human problem, existential or otherwise, that philosophy has solved?
It depends, if you go the route of the Socratic Method you could end up with writing gigs for the BBC, CNN, or for any of the The Daily Show alumni.
Sixclaws at February 2, 2018 1:16 PM
Fortunately, one has the right to tell them, "You're wrong, and you're likely stupid to boot. Here is why."
Kevin at February 1, 2018 11:35 PM
_______________________________________
Not in those exact words, I trust. Pointing out the faults in someone's arguments in a sly manner may make that person cry, but at least that person was LISTENING, or he/she wouldn't be crying.
Or, as many have said, "you can blow off steam or change your opponent's mind, but not both, as a rule. Which do you care more about?"
lenona at February 2, 2018 2:38 PM
What is the last big human problem, existential or otherwise, that philosophy has solved?
_________________________________________
Well, if enough people take "The God Delusion" to heart (and learn not to let their guard down around the dangerous people who don't) we just MIGHT have a better chance at world peace.
lenona at February 2, 2018 2:40 PM
Or, as many have said, "you can blow off steam or change your opponent's mind, but not both, as a rule. Which do you care more about?"
I'm not particularly interested in changing other people's minds, nor am I big on blowing off steam.
Kevin at February 2, 2018 2:42 PM
Ah yes, those dangerous people who believe in God. Let's blame religion for all the world's ills. It's easier that way; less actual thinking involved.
Conan the Grammarian at February 2, 2018 5:24 PM
For the record, philosophy has much to do with engineering. It begins with a brutally rigorous appreciation of logic, then goes on from there. Properly approached, there's nothing effete or useless about it.
Crid at February 2, 2018 8:54 PM
"Ah yes, those dangerous people who believe in God. Let's blame religion for all the world's ills. It's easier that way; less actual thinking involved."
Ask Charlie Hebdo. Of course you were thinking about Baptists, weren't you?
Radwaste at February 3, 2018 3:09 AM
Not really. I grew up in the South, around evangelical Baptists, and am not a fan; really not a fan. When it comes to religion, I'm more of a skeptical agnostic.
I was thinking of the knee-jerk tendency in too many people who've proclaimed themselves to be atheists to blame religion for all the world's violence, hatred, and problems. As if, had the world eschewed religion, it would have been a peaceful paradise of enlightenment and tolerance.
These "enlightened" atheists pick the worst of the religious - evangelicals, jihadists, WBC types - and tar the entire religious world with them; loudly and publicly separating themselves from religion with arrogant (and often ignorant) dismissals of religion by characterizing it with simplistic dismissals like "invisible friend" or "superman."
And the rhetoric and delivery of their atheism tells us they're not on a journey of self-discovery, they're loudly and publicly rejecting the belief system of their parents and neighbors. It's teenaged rebellion writ large. Like hillbilly kids who went to college and discovered their parents and neighbors are uneducated and ignorant, they're going to wield their newfound enlightenment as a weapon against the heathens, beating them over the head with it whenever possible.
Religion has, over the centuries, moved the world to many things. Violence and hatred? Yes, but also discovery, charity, and even morality. It has divided people as well as united them.
If you're going to blame religion for all the evils committed it its name, you also have to credit it with the good done in its name. And, yes, there has been good - hospitals, orphanages, charities, universities, etc.
I know there's a tendency on this site for folks to dismiss Islam as violent and ignorant. But that's actually a fairly recent tendency in the history of one of the world's great belief systems. Islam was at the heart of some of the world's greatest civilizations. If not for the Mongols, it might still be.
Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2018 5:09 AM
Islam was at the heart of some of the world's greatest civilizations. If not for the Mongols, it might still be.
Bullshit
Islam conquered some of the worlds greatest civilizations and parasitically fed off them. generally within a few generations enough people in the conquered regions would convert to Islam to avoid the non stop harassment and all higher learning would cease
The Monguls in comparisons were benign taskmasters who generally left you alone so long as you paid tribute
lujlp at February 3, 2018 7:14 AM
> Or, as many have said, "you
> can blow off steam or change
> your opponent's mind, but not
> both, as a rule. Which do you
> care more about?"
"Many" were wrong. One great tragedy of this age, and perhaps all of them, is that people demand to be flattered for the things they believe or think about, or for any half-cooked daydream they can fit into a sentence.
No; Be *right* about stuff, whether it makes you pretty or not.
Crid at February 3, 2018 7:48 AM
Mongol destruction of the Khwarezmid Empire set off its conquest of the Islamic region. That conquest deflated Islam's pretension that Allah was on their side and wanted Islam to rule the world.
The Mongols excelled at cruelty in conquering those who did not immediately surrender to them. The conquest of the Khwarezmid Empire left Iraq, Turkey, and Syria wide open to conquest - and later Khans obliged.
Distraught Muslims sought answers as to why Allah had abandoned them and let them be conquered. They found those answers in fundamentalism, reverting back to a more primitive form of Islam than the one then in practice.
Without the conquest of the Khwarezmid Empire (brought about by the stupidity of the shah) and the subsequent conquest of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria, the Islamic world would have evolved differently and, perhaps, not become the morass of ignorance and intolerance it is today.
Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2018 8:43 AM
Crid, how do you KNOW it's wrong to say that people stop listening to people who say things they don't want to hear - ESPECIALLY when the speaker is a foul-mouthed boor?
I've never heard any scientific proof that Aesop was wrong when he said "persuasion is better than force." Foul language counts as force, in a way.
lenona at February 3, 2018 8:48 AM
"If you're going to blame religion for all the evils committed it its name, you also have to credit it with the good done in its name. And, yes, there has been good - hospitals, orphanages, charities, universities, etc."
Okay. Now, where are the Muslim hospitals?
Radwaste at February 3, 2018 2:01 PM
Right beside the PLO ammo dumps. But which came first? Today's Islam is still suffering from the reversion to fundamentalism after the Mongol conquest, so its medical knowledge is probably not as advanced as it could be.
However...
Charity (toward fellow Muslims) is one of the pillars of Islam. Under the "rightly guided" caliphs (Rashidun), a percentage of war booty was sent to charities to take care of widows and orphans, to dig wells and build roads in the conquered territories, and to provide for the indigent.
When the Umayyad Caliphate succeeded the Rashidun, the charity portion of the loot was redirected to the Caliph's treasury and giving to the Caliphate was counted as charity.
The Umayyads, however, did begin the process of collecting all existing medical knowledge, translating it to Arabic, and building hospitals to dispense medical care to all who needed it. Hospitals were built across the Islamic world, from the first one in Damascus to later ones in Baghdad, Tunis, Morocco, Cairo, and Andalusia.
Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2018 2:56 PM
Well, if enough people take "The God Delusion" to heart (and learn not to let their guard down around the dangerous people who don't) we just MIGHT have a better chance at world peace.
lenona at February 2, 2018 2:40 PM
My problem with "The God Delusion" and the rest of Dawkins' whole shtick is the straw man Christianity he sets up, which is pretty easy to knock down. It's not a book written to help Christians understand Dawkins' version of reality; it's a book to allow his like-minded sycophants to congratulate themselves on their enlightenment.
Grey Ghost at February 5, 2018 6:14 AM
Leave a comment