Combine profundities of truth and meaning with fast-paced narrative ratiocination and be another Eco.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Michael Dirda on Robert Irwin on Orientalism
‘Irwin has, to use his own highest accolade, tried to get things right.’
-
South Africa Legalizes Same-sex Marriage
SA constitution the first in the world to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference.
-
Is Feminism a War Against Boys?
No: the ‘war against boys’ is a war against feminism.
-
The no true Scot move
Nigel Warburton has a new blog. This post grabbed my attention the other day. It’s something I’ve wondered about often, I think. Is Anthony Grayling right to say that no truly intelligent mind can lack a sense of humour?
This sounds like a case of what Anthony Flew in his book Thinking About Thinking labelled ‘The No True Scotsman Move’. If someone says ‘No Scotsman could commit a gruesome murder’ and then is confronted with evidence that someone who was born in Scotland had committed such a murder, they explalin ‘Ah, but if they committed a murder like that, they’re not a true Scotsman’. Similarly if I manage to dig up some examples of very intelligent people who completely lack a sense of humour, no doubt Anthony Grayling will tell me they are not ‘truly intelligent’. Isn’t it wishful thinking to believe that a sense of humour should be a necessary constituent of intelligence?
Yes, maybe, and yet – and yet I think there’s something in the idea, even if the ‘no truly’ move isn’t quite the right one. No completely or no thoroughly might be a better one. People can be intelligent and yet curiously dense in certain areas – and that does (surely) tend to be part of our notion of their intelligence. A ‘yes but’ kind of thing. Yes but dang she is deaf to social nuances, sort of thing. So with a sense of humour, I think. There is something obtuse about no sense of humour – something, as I said there, dim, point-missing, obtuse, shuttered, blinkered, unobservant. Just not getting it. It’s still possible to be intelligent, but it is a flawed and incomplete kind of intelligence – even, I would claim, more flawed and incomplete than all intelligence naturally is. It’s a conspicuous cognitive flaw in an otherwise intelligent person. Wouldn’t you say? I’m not certain of this, it’s an intuition, but it seems right. Answers on a postcard.
-
A Bastion against Irrationalism
Crews, Frederick. 2006. Follies of the Wise: Dissenting Essays. Emeryville, CA: Shoemaker & Hoard. Pp. 405.
ISBN (10) 1-59376-101-5
ISBN (13) 978-1-59376-101-1.Freud, Sigmund. 2006. Lettres à Wilhelm Fliess 1887-1904. Traduit de l’allemand par Françoise Kahn
et François Robert. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (Bibliothèque de Psychanalyse). Pp. 763.
ISBN 2-13-054995-0.The other week my mailbox received the serendipitous joint arrival of — from America — the latest collection of Frederick Crews’s critical essays in book-form, and — from France — the long-awaited and long-delayed uncensored French edition of the complete letters of Freud to Wilhelm Fliess (published in English by Harvard University Press in 1985 and in German by S. Fischer Verlag in Germany in1986). If ever an instance were needed to illustrate the cultural and intellectual divide — far wider than the Atlantic — currently separating the French university system from the American one (at its best), this was surely it. The simultaneous arrival that day of my weekly le nouvel Observateur (no. 2188, du 13 au 18 octobre 2006) merely confirmed this state of affairs. On the cover were Sigmund Freud and, almost leaning on his right shoulder, the faithful daughter, Anna Freud, and over the cover-photo the announcement of the publication of the French translation of the unexpurgated letters to Fliess on this sesquicentennial year: “Freud inédit. Révélations sur la naissance de la PSYCHANALYSE“. I almost expected a Boutique fantasque ballet between the competing papers, books, and wrappings so promiscuously bundled together in my inert mailbox. But all was safely transported upstairs to my dining table where I could consider the relative qualities of the protagonists.
The latest volume of collected essays by Frederick Crews, Follies of the Wise, is without any doubt the most timely of his several books. Although a “collection” of essays, largely published previously by The New York Review of Books, the volume has its own inner coherence: it is beautifully constructed and its four defined sections lead naturally the inquisitive, curious mind of the reader (and Crews demands his readers to have such minds!) from one instance of woolly ( i.e. unempirical, i.e. “thoughtless”) response to a more intelligently engaged involvement with the text. Of prime — but by no means sole — concern are the various proven rhetorical malfeasances of Sigmund Freud and the consequences of this blight throughout the whole of the Twentieth Century on clear thought in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, therapy, and “medical” therapies of various inventions. Crews does not say so in so many words — he leaves the reader to conclude appropriately — but, inevitably, Freud has been the single most disastrous invader (Freud’s term was “conquistador“) of the medical profession of psychiatry. Freud’s various influences have been in every measure negative and, on more than one occasion, literally deadly — from his misleading narratives of imaginary cures of misdiagnosed hysteria to the massive productions of family disintegration in North America via the production of false “repressed” memories dependent upon the therapeutic continuation and enactment of his theories of human psychological development. (On this specific issue one should read the excellent little book by the Harvard professor of psychiatry, Harrison G. Pope, Jr., 1997. Psychology Astray: Fallacies in Studies of “Repressed Memory” and Childhood Trauma. Boca Raton, FL: Upton Books).
Follies of the Wise is divided into four thematic sections (each with its own chapters) and two wonderfully informative conversational Appendices with representatives of the Universities he had been invited to speak at– one on Crews’s refusal to soft-pedal Darwinism when dealing with Creationism; the other on the sheer useless pseudo-scientific gibberish of Lacanism. It is in this latter Appendix (at the very end of the book) that we learn that Frederick Crews was one of the early confidants of Alan Sokal before the decision to publish the now-famous Social Text hoax article, the mock paper on deconstruction and quantum gravity — that Crews refers to joyfully as “surely the finest travesty of academic irrationalism ever written”. (The book by Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont, Impostures intellectuelles, published in Paris in 1997 by Odile Jacob, caused an academic tsunami — from which the French are still recovering!)
The four thematic divisions are the following: “The Antiscience” (dealing largely with the early Freud’s proposals and the unhelpful contributions of his recent American defenders ( e.g. Lear and Wollheim); “Modern Deviltry” (dealing with the “diagnostic follies” of recovered memory cases, the gross insufficiencies of the Swiss (Freudian) based “Ink-blot” test of Rorschach; “The Will to Believe” which deals with the Madame Blavatsky contribution to civilization of “Theosophy” and goes on to belabour the Creationists “and their Friends”; and, finally, “A Discipline in Crisis” where Crews is particularly (and rightly) critical of the notions bruited abroad in the Humanities by the “Poststructuralists”. These theoretically-driven denizens of the tenure-track posts in the Humanities departments of North American universities have not only relentlessly damaged their profession and their tame undergraduates,they have used in the most seductive and stupid ways possible the rhetorically persuasive arguments of Freud-AND-Marx. The combination has proved awkward to deal with in the United States — virtually impossible to challenge in France (for lack of an honest audience).
Crews’s compilation is in every sense a breath of fresh air for those suffocating under the oxygen-deprived atmosphere of the Common-Room. Yes! you may dare to think again! This is no guarantee of immortality.
For that you may need the assistance of Michael Schröter, Gerhard Fichtner, and Françoise Kahn & François Robert. The first two named are the German experts at Tübingen who deciphered and corrected the hand-written ur-text of Freud’s letters, the latter two are those we must be grateful to for having given to the French public — albeit a quarter of a century after the English-speaking peoples had access to it — the first uncensored, unexpurgated text of the Freud letters during the foundation years of what was to become psychoanalysis. The translators, and indeed PUF, are to be congratulated on relying solely on the original German of Freud’s texts as a basis for their translation. This edition is more scrupulous of its sources than the English edition. Jeffrey M. Masson’s notes have been incorporated into the body of notes prepared by the editors. The French journalistic response to the publication of these letters has been almost universally pro-Freudian! The national daily, Le Monde, for example chose the Lacanian trained Freudian Elisabeth Roudinesco to write a review of the Letters. The article was appropriately titled: “La passionnante correspondance de l’inventeur de la psychanalyse avec son ami Wilhelm Fliess: NAISSANCE DE FREUD“.
We do not see in this correspondence the early steps of a genius — quite the contrary! — we are witness to an unbridled and indiscreet series of “how-about’s” as Sigmund tried out — unsuccessfully, it seems — on his friend the ear-nose-and-throat doctor from Berlin, Wilhelm Fliess. And, contrary to usual psychoanalytic rumour, it does not seem that “Freud gradually distanced himself” from Fliess; but, on the contrary, that Fliess himself grew fed up with the nonsense he was receiving from Vienna. This does not, incidentally, make of Fliess some paladin of nose medication. Freud — out of sheer physiological ignorance — went along with Fliess’s insane notion of the turbinate bones in the nose (the tuberculi septi) being responsible for, or indicative of, “the nasal reflex neurosis” (a home-grown malady invented by Fliess himself and, for some time, credited by Freud) and allowed him to perform in February1895 the weird operation of the victim/patient Emma Eckstein which nearly killed her! These letters, one might think, were — if ever it were needed — the ultimate evidence that psychoanalysis is a scientific fraud founded upon the twin conceits of medical ignorance and rhetoric. For the anglophone reader, the extraordinary effect of the readings — and presentations — of these letters in the Presses Universitaires de France edition is that “Un autre Freud?” as their advert ribbon asks, is a “come-on” that only the French would be seduced by. It may well be poetic justice that the nation that showed Freud the magic of hypnotic “transference” during his short six months with Charcot at La Salpêtrière has since become the nation — along with Brazil and Argentina — that most respects the “discoveries” of Lacan and his Guru. It is scarcely revealing a secret to say that French psychiatry is virtually 100 years out of date! (A French empirical psychiatrist amazed me last year when he discovered on a trip to a military hospital in Paris that ALL military psychiatrists had undergone Lacanian psychoanalysis as part of their training programme.)
There were no discoveries — not even on the level of common-or-garden developmental psychology! The title chosen for this little review “a bastion against irrationalism” was taken from Frederick Crews’s own complaint that in America the Humanities had failed in their calling. Even the invention of outer-space invaders with a propensity to abduct humans was University sanctioned: “But another recent book about the UFO phenomenon offers a reminder that the contemporary academy, riven as it is by a chasm that has continued to widen since the 1970s, cannot be counted on as a bastion against irrationalism.” (page 211). Crews’s conclusions are bleak. But he means them; and he has thought them through carefully — them and their dire consequences! Nonetheless, because of his brilliant abilities to perceive the present and to warn of future difficulties, he remains the only kind of optimist we can safely trust: the skeptical sort. If I have one word to add, it is not for you, the potential readers, nor for Crews, but for his Californian publishing group — Shoemaker & Hoard — let them, as soon as possible ensure that a French and a German version of this excellent book be soon available in Europe. Europeans need to hear this kind of message. Crews is a “bastion against irrationalism”!
-
NWFP Passes Taleban-like Law
Musharraf denounced a similar bill last year as a breach of fundamental human rights.
-
A C Grayling on Religion’s Last Bloody Fling
Media amplification makes religion seem ubiquitous, but it’s fighting a rearguard action.
-
Ralf Dahrendorf Asks Why Religion Has Returned
Enlightened countries have become unsure of their values, even of the Enlightenment itself.
-
Religion and Politics: Overlapping Magisteria?
We should not feel obliged to agree with people whose reasons for their political views are religious.
-
Clive James Interview
Peace and freedom not natural states, but a construction that needs constant maintenance.
-
Job schemes
The ‘religious big cheese guys say religion is good and important and necessary‘ thing again. It occurs to me that I forgot to say well they would, wouldn’t they. I mean it’s a pretty funny story and headline, if you think about it. ‘Leaders back faith in public life’ the BBC has it – presumably because it would look too silly to say ‘Clerics back faith in public life’ and lead to a deafeningly raucous chorus of ‘No, really?!’ You might as well have a news headline saying ‘Shoe sellers back shoes on public feet’ or ‘Car makers back cars on public highways’. I mean what else would a couple of topp clerics say? ‘Clerics declare religion a waste of time and attention’? So they made it ‘leaders’ in order to fool people, also perhaps to reinforce the hidden assumption that clerics are in fact leaders.
Really when you come right down to it the whole exercise is just an unsubtle bit of job-protection. It’s like tobacco company executives earnestly assuring Congress that as far as they know and to the very best of their knowledge and understanding, tobacco is not addictive no indeed uh uh nope. It’s like the sugar people saying that sugar gets a bad rap. It’s like PR people doing PR for the PR industry. Archbishops moaning about atheism is like queens moaning about republicanism or doctors wishing more people would get sick. It carries just a faint, tiny, barely detectable whiff of self-interest about it. And if you look at it that way, of course, they are the very last people anyone should listen to on the subject. They’re wheeled out as experts, but what if they’re not so much experts as people with a vested interest? What if they’re simply guys who want to hang onto their posh jobs? At the very least it discredits their line of patter.
Alun at Archaeoastronomy has an amusing post on the Archbishop of York’s latest grumblings at atheists and secularism.
-
One thought too many
No. Wrong. Quite, quite wrong.
Brown responded to the BNP verdict by saying Griffin’s description of Islam as a ‘wicked, vicious faith’ would offend ‘mainstream opinion in this country’. He said: ‘If there is something that needs to be done to look at the law, then I think we will have to do that.’
Brown may have said more than that; the Observer may be being unfair to him; but all the same, that selection from what he did say is somewhat alarmingly (if you’ll forgive a foreigner for saying so) wrong if it is meant as a justification for the selection that follows. If it’s just a statement of fact, it may or may not be accurate but it’s not very alarming; but if the two parts of that passage go together, it’s a mess. “Offend’ and ‘mainstream’ and ‘opinion’ are three of the best words he could possibly have chosen not to cite as reasons for ‘looking at,’ i.e. changing, the law. In other words, liberal democracies aren’t supposed to be in the business of crafting laws to criminalize speech that would ‘offend mainstream opinion.’ Really they’re not. Really. Promise. Believe it or not, speech that ‘offends mainstream opinion’ and causes no other harm is precisely, but precisely, the kind of speech that is meant to be protected in liberal democracies; protected, not criminalized; protected, in fact, exactly from these fretful impulses to make them illegal that trouble the sleep of governments. I realize you guys don’t have the actual slip of paper that spells that out in so many words, but you do have the idea. But some of the people who make the laws apparently don’t, quite. Apparently they actually do think that saying things that would offend mainstream opinion really ought to be illegal. But (a whisper in your shell-like) mainstream opinion can sometimes be wrong. It has been known. So outlawing all speech that would offend mainstream opinion could have some perverse effects. And then, what of all these hymns to richness and diversity? Hm? If we’re going to rejoice at richness and diversity, we can’t very well with the next breath declare that mainstream opinion should have veto power over speech, can we.
That’s not to say that I think threatening speech should be protected. I have mixed opinions about that. But it sure is to say that offensive is not the same thing as threatening, and that the distinction is important.
-
State Church Dangerous in Fundamentalist Era
Religious leaders sit ex officio in the legislature only in the UK and Iran.
-
Jesus and Mo on Lying
Moses gets thirsty.
-
Help Ben Goldacre With Freedom of Inf Request
It’s about those fish oil pills again.
-
Nick Cohen is Uneasy About Smug Sociologists
Who say fellow citizens are addled by ‘moral panics’ which they are too sophisticated to fall for.
-
Discussion of Women and Veiling
Radio Netherlands has an exchange of views.
-
Twilight
Anthony Grayling replies to the archbishops.
In the foreword to the confused document produced by the religious thinktank Theos this week the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster…iterate the claim that “atheism is itself a faith position”. This is a weary old canard to be set alongside the efforts of the faithful to characterise those who robustly express their attitude towards religious belief as “fundamentalist atheists”…We understand that the faithful live in an inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation, through the swirls of which it is hard to see anything clearly, so a simple lesson in semantics might help to clear the air for them on the meanings of “secular”, “humanist” and “atheist”. Once they have succeeded in understanding these terms they will grasp that none of them imply “faith” in anything, and that it is not possible to be a “fundamentalist” with respect to any of them.
An inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation – that’s not bad. Made me snicker anyway.
People who do not believe in supernatural entities do not have a “faith” in “the non-existence of X” (where X is “fairies” or “goblins” or “gods”); what they have is a reliance on reason and observation, and a concomitant preparedness to accept the judgment of both on the principles and theories that premise their actions…”Faith” – specifically and precisely: the commitment to a belief in the absence of evidence supporting that belief, or even (to the greater merit of the believer) in the very teeth of evidence contrary to that belief – is a far different thing…for faith at its quickly-reached limit is the negation of thought.
Well, yes. It’s considered bad form to say so, but that is after all what the word means. It’s sometimes a good thing in personal relations and in social and political commitments, but it’s never a good thing in epistemology.
Even some on my own side of the argument here make the mistake of thinking that the dispute about supernaturalistic beliefs is whether they are true or false. Epistemology teaches us that the key point is about rationality. If a person gets wet every time he is in the rain without an umbrella, yet persists in hoping that the next time he is umbrella-less in the rain he will stay dry, then he is seriously irrational. To believe in the existence of (say) a benevolent and omnipotent deity in the face of childhood cancers and mass deaths in tsunamis and earthquakes, is exactly the same kind of serious irrationality.
So – never go out without your umbrella, and be careful in the inspissated gloaming.
-
Grayling on Mandatory Religion
Offers the archbishops a lesson in semantics.
