It’s Up to Five
Update on update. Just by way of reporting, because I think it’s interesting, as a display of apparently unembarrassed irrationality and Bad Argument. I mean, this is a guy who teaches philosophy, at a university; a guy who, one of our readers reports, has written a book about bad arguments. And yet here he is. He doesn’t have time to answer everyone who disagrees with him, he wrote yesterday, and yet so far he has posted no fewer than five complaints about ‘the lack of decency, civility, and common sense’ and the illogic of people at Crooked Timber who take exception to his doggy analogy. And yet the posts at CT are in fact substantive; B-J could easily have addressed that substance; he never has; he just keeps announcing that he is an outsider and that explains all. That’s such an obvious diversionary tactic that one would think he would refrain from using it merely on prudential grounds. But no.
If you think I’m making this up, read the posts and letters at Crooked Timber. Note the ganging up. Note the attempt to build solidarity within liberalism by attacking outsiders, such as me. Note the snide, condescending comments. Note the lack of decency, civility, and common sense. Note the illogic. These are people who are sworn by their universities to seek truth. They don’t give a damn about truth.
Note the attempt to get people to note things that aren’t in fact there, on the basis of nothing but a series of imperatives. He doesn’t quote, he doesn’t give examples, he just asserts. And he continues to do nothing whatever to address what is actually being discussed. Why doesn’t he just confound their knavish tricks by explaining why his analogy is perfectly appropriate? Since he’s presumably sworn by his university to seek truth and all. Several people have suggested that he’s just trolling, and it may be so, but it seems awfully self-shooting-in-foot if so. He’s not exactly covering himself with cognitive glory.
Yeah, he wrote the book on bad arguments, all right. Frankly, he sounds as though he’s having a mental breakdown.
Hmm. If he’s having a mental breakdown I ought to shut up, as a matter of mercy. But other parts of his blog look sane enough. I wonder if it’s something more like watching too much O’Reilly and wanting to be like him. Or of getting into such a temper at being disagreed with that all he can do is complain of liberal illogic (but again that seems so bizarre for a university philosophy teacher).
“I wonder if it’s something more like watching too much O’Reilly and wanting to be like him.”
Could be. Could very well be. It’s a pet peeve of mine that these cable-TV shoutfest shows are severely eroding public discourse in this country. It seems lately that almost every town council and discussion section has its O’Reilly/Matthews wannabe. It’s depressing.
Okay, so maybe Mr. Anal Philo suffers instead from a particularly debilitating personality defect.
I know, I know, one of mine too. Pseudo-O’Reillys and McLaughlins everywhere, ecch.
There’s a good one for Prince Charles to write a memo about. ‘Why is it that every talentless noisy bad-tempered fool thinks it’s easy to be another O’Reilly or Matthews? It takes genius or hard work to be like them.’
Errr, because it is easy for any talentless noisy bad-tempered fool to be another…?
*snicker*
You know, I’m beginning to think you may be right about that!