Comments on my comments may be sent to PHIMESSE@ACS.EKU.EDU

Return to my main menu.

• A New Feature: New Comandments for the Web

  1. Thou shalt not confuse a virtual something with a real something. (A virtual university should award virtual credits. Or maybe: A virtual university should virtually award virtual credits.)

  2. Thou shalt not record bookmarks for pornographic web pages on computers that are shared with others.

  3. Thou shalt not print from pornographic web pages to publically accessible printers.

  4. Thou shalt not refer to thy own web page as "cool."

  5. Thou shalt not dedicate a web page to explaining to the world what a wonderful person you are. (In virtual reality narcissism is still a real vice.)

  6. Thou shalt not assume that "surfing the net" is part of thy job description.

  7. Thou shalt not confuse putting something on one's web page with publishing something. (At best it is like publishing with a vanity press but with only a fraction of the cost.)

  8. Thou shalt not use e-mail to hasten the demise of the art of letter writing. One can write artful e-letters.

  9. Thou shalt not put a counter on one's page for it either shows an excess of pride or an excess of humility.

  10. Thou shalt not put "under construction" on web pages, for we all know that they are never finished.

  ---

• Shelby Foote said that America's great strength was in compromising although we always like to think of ourselves as being uncompromisingly strong men. It does seem that in today's political climate compromise has got a very bad name. Clinton is continually protrayed as weak because he settles for less than all he wants on such issues as the status of gays in the military and welfare reform. In each case he indicates that he will try for more later. This does not seem like weakness to me, but a sign of political intelligence on Clinton's part. Apparently to most of our political pundits half-a-loaf is definitely not better than none. And of course, they are going to critize you for getting none, as well. They seem to think that the options are either complete vitory or toal defeat. I suppose the main advantage of setting things up that way is that you will always have something to criticize if you wish (since you know full well that rarely in politics does anyone get all they want.)
• In the 80's we had several struggles over Supreme Court nominations. It seemed that we were either to have an arch-conservative, and then Reagan would be the winner, or we were to have an extreme liberal, and then the Democratic Senate would be the winner. What we got in all the cases (except Clarence Thomas) were nominees who have turned out to be far more moderate than conservative. Isn't that what one should expect if you have a conservative President and a liberal Senate, both of whom must agree on a nominee? But from the press, one would think that compromise wasn't even considered. Yet we seem to have gotten it anyway. Now how could that have happened?
• Trash-talking and general berating of one's opponents is, of course, bad manners. But they also fail to make sense simply in terms of the competitive urge itself. Part of that urge is to establish one's superiority in the competitive activity--not just relative to that opponent, but in general. (Grudge matches are an exception, but they are also very impure examples of the competitive urge.) Thus, if one's opponent is worthless (or worse), as one's trash-talking has it, then by defeating him or her you have established only that you are a little better than worthless. On the other hand beat an opponent who is considered great, and you have something upon which to pride yourself. So trash-talkers are insincere, not true competitors, or fail to understand the logical implications of victory and defeat (in a fair competitive situation.)
• Similar reasoning can be applied to injuries. When an injury occurs to an important player, the players on the other team who have just received a competitive advantage from the injury often remark that "injuries are a part of the game." That's true, but usually speakers of these words are trying to say that the injury which may have made his or her team's march to the championship into something of a walk-over does not in anyway tarnish the greatness of their victory. That is untrue. Injuries are a part of the game, but they are a part of the game that lessens the meaningfulness of the victory. Now the victory will prove less about the greatness of the victor. True competitors, be they players or fans, know that injuries are a loss to everyone.
• Just as a reason for opposing "trash-talking" can be found from within the activity of sport and its own goals, so can a reason for explaining the need for citations be found within the activity of writing itself. It is certainly true that just as "trash-talking" is bad manners, failure to cite one's sources is dishonesty. I am of course in favor of good manners and honesty. But it seems to me that citations are needed within a work to give it persuasive force where it is needed. A writer's persuasive case may, in some circumstances, depend only on the appeal to commomplace facts. But far more often it will depend on unfamiliar facts. If these are not drawn from from a reputable source, the reader cannot be expected to be persuaded by the author's appeal to undocumented alleged "facts." Citations lend respectability and even power to an author's work. Dishonest citation, if discovered, casts doubt on the worth of the writer's arguments. Readers ought to know this about the value of citation in a piece of persuasive writing. It might make them more skeptical about popular and journalistic styles that often appeal to no sources or only cite unnamed sources. I suspect this is healthy attitude to have about such writing.
• Sokal's parody of post-modernist rhetoric which was read "straight" and published by Social Texts raises interesting issues about post-modernism. Sokal himself sees the post-modernists as threatening the notion of fact and objectivity as scientists usually understand these ideas. Some post-modernists like Stanley Fish have tried to reassure Sokal and those who share his fears that post-modernists believe in facts and objectivity. But one should be wary of such reassurances. Berkeley could assure scientists that he too believed in the existence of physical objects. But since scientists do not think of physical objects as mind-dependent objects, Berkeley's comment would be misleading. Likewise, if postmodernists says they too believe in facts, be sure to ask them if they think that facts are defined only according to some prevailing conceptual scheme. If they say they believe in objectivity, be sure to ask whether for them objectivity simply means following a set of procedures endorsed by some prevailing conceptual scheme and possess no objectivity beyond this conceptual scheme. Before you are comforted by a post-modernists admission that chemistry, as it is currently practiced, does on at least some issues provide an objective path to facts, be sure to ask: Do you think that alchemy is as valid as chemistry? If post-modernists are willing to admit that some conceptual schemes (traditions, ways of life, etc.) are more valid than others and that one can discover this without simply assuming the standards provided by his or her own tradition, then I'll believe that post-modernists are not enemies of science.
• It seems to me that teachers are generous people. They have worked hard to acquire something, and they are eager to share it with others. Of course, they get paid, but the generosity of the best teachers knows no bounds. They teach in and out of the classroom, to enrolled students and to anyone else who will listen, and they are constantly eager and delighted to share what they have acquired. Here is where many teachers find lasting and meaningful rewards in their professions. But now the post-modernists, at least some, tell us that what we are really doing is simply serving as part of the power base for prevailing political forces. When I share what I know about Aristotle, I am really just perpetuating Western patriarchal ideas. (OK, I may not be ONLY doing that, but, according to many posties, I am definitely doing that.) Now obviously teaching is dangerous--even when one only tries to teach the problems and issues of Western philosophy and not some particular philosophy--and the good teacher guards against bias in his teaching. So it is good to be reminded that ideas and methods may have links to the wider social and political context in which they were developed. But suppose knowledge is by necessity some sort of political tool used against the weak, what then of a teacher's image of herself? She will not see herself as this generous souled individual with this best interests of her students lodged deep in her heart. Rather she will see herself as a pawn whose job it is to initiate her students into their assigned places in the political order. If I really believed this, I could not continue to be a teacher. I wonder how posties manage to stay in the teaching profession.
• I continually wonder how fine social and political groups like many feminist and environmental groups seem so willing to attach themselves to post-modernist positions. It seems to me that in its skeptical side post-modernism may provide the tools for attacking the abuses to which modern thought contributed. But what I fail to see is a way in which post-modernism can bring itself to recommend a program of action or a goal to be achieved. Moreover, it is pretty-clear to me that one can acquire the skeptical tools without accepting post-modernist ideas and so without becoming moribund when it comes time to identity and follow paths of progress.