XKCD
Literary Criticism Edition
XKCD on Literary Criticism.
Yup.
Thing is, LitCrit isn't inherently bullshit. It's currently largely bullshit largely because it's heavily influenced by postmodernism, poststructuralism, "cultural criticism," recent Continental philosophy and all that crap. Or at least because so many LitCritters have adopted the same ridiculous quasi-literary methods that drive that other stuff.
I mean, literature is interesting, and when people say interesting things about literature, that can be...well...interesting. Talk to many literary scholars in today's university, however, and you'll be regaled with quasi-free-associative nonsense about deconstructing that this or that, the Holy Trinity of Race, Class and Gender, and a cartload of poorly-understood crap about "essentialism" and "Cartesianism" (not to be confused with essentialism and Cartesianism...). Trying to be a sensible and genuinely interesting scholar of literature today seems like a particularly difficult thing to do, as you'll be pretty much on your own in a largely hostile world.
Much of what goes on in academia these days is pretty much unmitigated nonsense. It not only wastes students' time (as they could be studying something valuable), but it actually makes them dumber. Not only are they not learning how to reason well, they are actually learning how to reason poorly. And just to be clear about this: I'm not one of those dolts who thinks that university education should be more vocationally-oriented or any such thing. I think a university education should aim primarily at intellectual ends, not vocational ones. Look, I'm a guy who sits around wondering whether he's a brain in a vat...and much of what goes on in the contemporary university makes me look like Louis freakin' Pasteur...
It's a goddamn travesty is what it is.
And this isn't just me being cranky, this is for real. It's not like there aren't interesting things to be said about race, class or sex (or even gender, which is a different thing); it's that you aren't going to say many of them if your method--such as it is-- mostly involves free-associating about your opponents' hidden biases, using baroque terminology that you don't really understand and just plain making shit up.
(H/T The Dark Avenger)
Literary Criticism Edition
XKCD on Literary Criticism.
Yup.
Thing is, LitCrit isn't inherently bullshit. It's currently largely bullshit largely because it's heavily influenced by postmodernism, poststructuralism, "cultural criticism," recent Continental philosophy and all that crap. Or at least because so many LitCritters have adopted the same ridiculous quasi-literary methods that drive that other stuff.
I mean, literature is interesting, and when people say interesting things about literature, that can be...well...interesting. Talk to many literary scholars in today's university, however, and you'll be regaled with quasi-free-associative nonsense about deconstructing that this or that, the Holy Trinity of Race, Class and Gender, and a cartload of poorly-understood crap about "essentialism" and "Cartesianism" (not to be confused with essentialism and Cartesianism...). Trying to be a sensible and genuinely interesting scholar of literature today seems like a particularly difficult thing to do, as you'll be pretty much on your own in a largely hostile world.
Much of what goes on in academia these days is pretty much unmitigated nonsense. It not only wastes students' time (as they could be studying something valuable), but it actually makes them dumber. Not only are they not learning how to reason well, they are actually learning how to reason poorly. And just to be clear about this: I'm not one of those dolts who thinks that university education should be more vocationally-oriented or any such thing. I think a university education should aim primarily at intellectual ends, not vocational ones. Look, I'm a guy who sits around wondering whether he's a brain in a vat...and much of what goes on in the contemporary university makes me look like Louis freakin' Pasteur...
It's a goddamn travesty is what it is.
And this isn't just me being cranky, this is for real. It's not like there aren't interesting things to be said about race, class or sex (or even gender, which is a different thing); it's that you aren't going to say many of them if your method--such as it is-- mostly involves free-associating about your opponents' hidden biases, using baroque terminology that you don't really understand and just plain making shit up.
(H/T The Dark Avenger)
posted by Winston Smith at
7:04 AM
3 Comments:
Okay, so first, up front: I agree with you.
Second, though, I think that the fault for this lies as much at our doorstep (Philosophy Folk) as it does at the doorstep of Literary Folk. That is to say: Derrida was an obfuscationist douchebag (or, as they'd say in France sac de douche delioberately déroutant), and sadly, he was our obfuscationist douchebag. The LitCrit folks were just taken in by his silliness.
---Myca
Not just being cranky, as this is peak art of piquant, well-piqued crankiness. Hilarious, too. Kudos!
What do you mean "our", Myca? I don't know anyone in philosophy who thinks he was a philosopher in any sense of the term.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home