Jim worte: On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote:
What argument from authority? Barring the sudden onset of senility or insanity, familiarity with past work gives you a general indication of whether or not you want to read something.
Your question is your own answer. Your belief in their consistency, and it's acceptability by your sensibilities, is an 'authority'. You've given them trust a priori. I prefer they earn it each and every time anew.
No, that's not it: the only "trust" you give them comes with getting you on the first page in the first place, not what you come to think of it afterward. Surely you dont mean to say you never make choices of what to read based on something's potential value to you. Haven't you ever picked up a book because you anticipated enjoying it, started reading it, and put it down when you realized the methodology was flawed or the scholarship was poor after all? If not, maybe you need to be more discriminate... I bet you have though, and aren't quite the non-judgemental tabula rasa your comments indicate.
A personal note, I hate sequels. Even reading this list, I'm sure there are people you read first and people you skip totally...And how likely is it that the first 15 essays are excellent but they saved the crappy ones for 16 on? ha! Actualy I read just about every submission to the list, I don't in general pick viewpoints based on personality. The whole 'cult of personality' crap makes me queezy.
Agh, not personality, it comes back to the matter of not wasting time: Some people seldom have anything to say that I find remotely interesting, so I've learned it's in my best interest to skip them. On the other hand, some people put really put some effort into their contributions and write in a relevant and thoughtful way--so when I'm pressed for time, (as I usually am) I read them first. If the subject is important enough I'll read all the comments, but otherwise it gets prioritized, like everything else. And none of this has the slightest thing to do with whether or not I agree with or like someone. Jeez, who haven't I argued with here...
As to essays, I find it a rare author who writes 15 pages, let alone 15 essays, I don't find problems with. If you can read a book and go through an entire chapter without saying "wait just a damn minute..." then you're either not absorbing what is being said, you are reading material that is already in line with your views/expectations, or else it's 'fluff'.
Absolutely. I just happen to think you can have the highest degree of respect for someone's work you don't agree with, and that people you do agree with shouldn't get a free pass. Check the archives, that's basically what I've said all along.
I'll make an observation, at the risk of offending sensibilities, from your past commentary you look for work that goes along with what you believe/want.
Look for? There's reading and then there's recommending. ;)
Myself, I tend to go places where I'm the minority (this mailing list being an example) because the dialog is much more invigorating than sitting in a bunch of people who already agree with me.
Oy vey, that's what I've already said... I don't think anyone would exactly characterize my views as representative of the list as a whole either. Or maybe you don't see it, being focused on your own "me versus the list" dynamic, eh?
All I'm saying is that his background credentials and published work was every bit as impressive the performance at the meeting...and that one of his essays is on the list. :) Now with a backstory like that, you actually mean to tell me I don't have a good reason to look forward to reading it? HA! Actually it demostrates my thesis above. You had a view, you found his view to be complementary (you agreed with everything he said),
No, not at all actually. Believe it or not, I'm not so arrogant and self- assured that I have to agree with someone to be able to admit when they've got their opposition thoroughly outclassed in terms of sheer knowledge of the subject. Unlike other people in the room, the topic wasn't something I was heavily invested in in terms of reputation, career etc: anyone who tries to deny that makes a difference in how open-minded they are is fooling themselves. But everthing about the way he conducted himself presenting his arguments merited respect. If you can't change your mind in the face of new evidence, you're too dogmatic, not intellectually flexible enough. Sure, he influenced me, where's the shame in admitting that. Learning from someone doesnt mean you gave up your own independent judgement. And I'd rather change my mind than be an ignorant blockhead stuck in an ideological rut. Like far too many I'm sure we both could name.
and now you pursue that. Me, I'd hunt for the holes in his theory/argument (and I guarantee they are there).
Of course. And if it were my main area of interest, you can bet he'd be the first person I'd go to to argue with and sound my own theories out on. I'll save the second half for tomorrow... ~Faustine.
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote:
No, that's not it: the only "trust" you give them comes with getting you on the first page in the first place, not what you come to think of it afterward.
Exactly, perfect example of my point. You had already made up your mind that it was a 'worthy' read from past experience.
Surely you dont mean to say you never make choices of what to read based on something's potential value to you.
I don't read it unless I think I'll get something out of it; your assertion is really a tautology (though you don't seem to see that).
Haven't you ever picked up a book because you anticipated enjoying it, started reading it, and put it down when you realized the methodology was flawed or the scholarship was poor after all?
All the time. Irrelevant to the point under discussion though.
If not, maybe you need to be more discriminate... I bet you have though, and aren't quite the non-judgemental tabula rasa your comments indicate.
Ah, you draw a synonymous comparison that is false. 'expectation' is not 'judgement'. Not synonyms. Expectation is something that happens a priori, judgement post facto. Further, 'hope' is not 'expectation' either. As to methodology/scholarship, that's a slippery slope. It could be the reader not the author... Another point to add is that by using 'expectation' you're clearly not approaching the subject without bias (which isn't the same thing, despite your apparent equivalence, as tabula rasa). For a person to approach a subject tabula rasa they would need to be ignorant of the subject even in a subjective sense. If they are aware of the topic the best they can hope for is non-biased/open minded. Not the same thing. Generaly when I read a book, assuming it's not for personal pleasure, I'm not interested in the pro's or con's, but rather what info they can present that I haven't heard before (back to that hating sequels :). As to the logical consistency/validity of an argument, I can make my own mind up. I read books to expand my own model, not to take up anothers.
Agh, not personality, it comes back to the matter of not wasting time: Some people seldom have anything to say that I find remotely interesting, so I've learned it's in my best interest to skip them.
'wasting time' is 'personality'. Your waste of time is somebodies jewel of the Nile (I have these images of Creationist books I've read flashing through my mind, very unpleasant).
I'll make an observation, at the risk of offending sensibilities, from your past commentary you look for work that goes along with what you believe/want.
Look for? There's reading and then there's recommending. ;)
And there's looking for corroborating evidence... :)
No, not at all actually. Believe it or not, I'm not so arrogant and self- assured that I have to agree with someone to be able to admit when they've got their opposition thoroughly outclassed in terms of sheer knowledge of the subject.
That wasn't where I was going with my commentary. I was simply pointing out that the way you had worded it made it look like you were choosing reading/research material based on POV/personality instead of logic of argument. That you chose reading material based on pleasant past experience and familiarity rather than raw subject matter relevancy. As to the general commentary, now it makes more sense with clarification...I even agree for the most part. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
Faustine -
Jim Choate