[PREV - POSNER_DECLINES]    [TOP]

TRAITORS_OF_INTELLECT

                                             February 4-5, 2010

How does one deal with the
many and various intellects                   A related subject:
of suspect integrity?
                                              DUBIOUS_FLARE
Take Richard Posner as an example:

His hypocrisies are blatant,
his arguments are shallow,
and yet convoluted enough that it
can take some time to untangle them
if you were to take them seriously.

And when you were done making a
case, it would be too tedious for         KRUGMAN_INCLINED
anyone else to want to read
through it.

   It's hard not to think that
   this is the actual point:
   Posner isn't really trying                DECOY
   to make *good* arguments,
   he's trying to make ones
   that *sound* good on first
   listen, that are just
   difficult enough to refute          It is true that somewhere in the
   that no one will, or that if        various sneers, half-truths, and
   someone does no one will            distortions there's bound to be
   hear.                               some buried points of interest.

                                                       SHADE_CAST

                                       Given infinite energy and time,
                                       you could try to use someone like
                                       Posner to "keep yourself honest",
                                       or at least sharpen your debating
                                       skills.

                                       On the other hand, it might be
                                       adviseable to use the occasion
                                       to work on polishing up your
                                       cheap shots.
                                                              RORTY
                                          One good horse
                                          laugh, etc.


Evaluating motives and character--
it always seems both a necessary
task and an impossible one.                Where does this man fit in
Yet another morass (tar pit?)...           the stupid-evil-crazy triangle?

If you go there, you can get                   DEGENERATE_TRIANGLE
bogged down in accusations of "ad
hominem" attack, and the subject
under discussion can just strike               SPORTS_LOGIC
a pose of integrity, and comment
piously on the arrogance of fanatics
who just can't accept that someone
might sincerely disagree.                   The only way to win
                                            is not to play?

But in reality, you *have* to go                     HOPELESS_DEBATE
there.  You can't take every comment
of every commentator at face value,
if only because of the amount of
time that would take:

             There are intellectual standards that
             apply once you engage in a debate, but       SOURCES_CONSIDERED
             there has to be another set of standards
             that apply in choosing whether to engage.       THE_ROVERS


  Could it be that the evaluation of the
  speech should be done publicly, but the
  evaluation of the speaker is a private
  matter, not to be spoken of?

      But should these evaluations
      of character take place                   Consider, Menand's account
      entirely out of public view?              of the life of Charles
                                                S. Peirce: professionally
                                                crippled because a
                                                "friend" was quietly
                                                back-stabbing him,
                                                evidently because he
                                                didn't like Peirce living
                                                with his second wife
                                                before marriage....

                                                Under *some* circumstances
                                                we believe in the right to
                                                challenge an accuser, why
                                                not under all?

Nevertheless...

   IS_POT_BLACKNESS_HEREDITARY
   KRUGMAN_INCLINED                                    MENAND_CLUBBED


--------
[NEXT - DECOY]