I was linked today to a very amusing article by Denis Dutton. Dutton, for a few years in the late 1990's, held an absolutely brilliant bad writing contest. And who were these bad writers whom Mr. Dutton was honoring for their dense, meaningless prose? Why, his very own colleagues -- college professors, mostly English professors, but some philosophy professors make it there, too.
Conveniently, Dutton wrote an essay explaining why he held this contest, an essay aptly named "Language Crimes." It is perhaps fitting that he targets English professors in particular, for these are the people who are supposed to be teaching students how to write -- while their own prose is sorely lacking in both style and, at times, real substance.
I should perhaps take offense at this (as some scholars certainly did). While I admit, there may be some need for technical language, is jargon really a requirement for everything? Is there truly a need for all of this obtuse prose? Do these theories really lose their power if explained in simpler, more accessible language?
To end with a couple of question: Do you think the winners of Dutton's Bad Writing Contest are samples of truly bad writing? Is bad writing a problem in academic writing?
Saturday, May 8, 2010
What Have We Learned?
Sarah asked "What have you learned?"
This is, of course, a rather loaded question, and doubtless one would have a different answer right at the end of the course than they might five, ten, twenty or more years down the line, so answering now could certainly provide an insight to my future self of how I once was (and in a public forum, no less! How delightfully narcissitic!).
I think I'll leave this in the form of a list.
1) I like eating meat, and will continue to do so, though I will certainly try to cut down on my consumption, and try to be more conscious of where it came from.
2) Socialists are not merely envious of those who excel.
3) Naturalism and supernaturalism will never find middle ground.
4) Time is real.
5) Radical constructivism, as it has so far been presented, is inherently unphilosophical, perhaps even anti-philosophical, because of its stubborn refusal to acknowledge the possibility of criticism.
6) I started this course as a constructive realist (or however we choose to name the philosophy). I now have a name for it, and the ability to explain and rationalize it.
To end with a very broad question that doubtless no one will tackle: What does it mean "to learn?"
This is, of course, a rather loaded question, and doubtless one would have a different answer right at the end of the course than they might five, ten, twenty or more years down the line, so answering now could certainly provide an insight to my future self of how I once was (and in a public forum, no less! How delightfully narcissitic!).
I think I'll leave this in the form of a list.
1) I like eating meat, and will continue to do so, though I will certainly try to cut down on my consumption, and try to be more conscious of where it came from.
2) Socialists are not merely envious of those who excel.
3) Naturalism and supernaturalism will never find middle ground.
4) Time is real.
5) Radical constructivism, as it has so far been presented, is inherently unphilosophical, perhaps even anti-philosophical, because of its stubborn refusal to acknowledge the possibility of criticism.
6) I started this course as a constructive realist (or however we choose to name the philosophy). I now have a name for it, and the ability to explain and rationalize it.
To end with a very broad question that doubtless no one will tackle: What does it mean "to learn?"
On Experience
"Every Experience is an experience of something." This seems so obvious that it would seem to be a truism, as "everything that is said is said by someone." And yet, it would seem to present quite a challenge to the metaphysical agnostic.
If this statement is true, that every experience is an experience of something, then would it not necessitate a world beyond our own consciousness to experience? And if it is false, well... radical constructivism implodes into solipsism. This seems fairly important for a philosophy whose basic tenet is a focus on "experience" rather than "reality."
This would seem, at first, to perhaps be a false dichotomy. Without something to experience, there can be no experience (unless you're a solipsist, in which case you're the only thing around -- and we can all agree that this idea is absurd). Why, then, is the radical constructivist so intent on denying the real world? Perhaps denying is too strong a word, but given how radical constructivists so love to attack realism as dogmatic and absurd, it seems ingenuous to try to maintain this agnosticism while constantly attacking and mocking one side of the equation, and ignoring the other.
I can already see how the radical constructivist might respond. "I simply do not understand constructivism." And thus, it falls into the trap of hypocrisy. This statement implies that anyone who "fully understands" radical constructivism would accept it dogmatically, unquestioningly. And on this ground I reject it. A philosophy that is so quick to act exactly as the system which it proposes to reject and offer an alternative to, particularly when it brushes off its criticism as being simply "misunderstood," is both academically dishonest, and frankly uninteresting for discussion.
To end with a question: is the above rejection of radical constructivism justified? Why or why not?
If this statement is true, that every experience is an experience of something, then would it not necessitate a world beyond our own consciousness to experience? And if it is false, well... radical constructivism implodes into solipsism. This seems fairly important for a philosophy whose basic tenet is a focus on "experience" rather than "reality."
This would seem, at first, to perhaps be a false dichotomy. Without something to experience, there can be no experience (unless you're a solipsist, in which case you're the only thing around -- and we can all agree that this idea is absurd). Why, then, is the radical constructivist so intent on denying the real world? Perhaps denying is too strong a word, but given how radical constructivists so love to attack realism as dogmatic and absurd, it seems ingenuous to try to maintain this agnosticism while constantly attacking and mocking one side of the equation, and ignoring the other.
I can already see how the radical constructivist might respond. "I simply do not understand constructivism." And thus, it falls into the trap of hypocrisy. This statement implies that anyone who "fully understands" radical constructivism would accept it dogmatically, unquestioningly. And on this ground I reject it. A philosophy that is so quick to act exactly as the system which it proposes to reject and offer an alternative to, particularly when it brushes off its criticism as being simply "misunderstood," is both academically dishonest, and frankly uninteresting for discussion.
To end with a question: is the above rejection of radical constructivism justified? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)