Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Stupid theory (or politics) questions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5(6)7 8

sdv (non-human)

21:42 / 13.01.07

Macheray 'In a Materialist way' Verso 1998 - very good..

14:50 / 01.02.07

Question:

Does anyone know of any academic studies of stupidity itself? I'm after anything that takes stupidity as it's main subject - but stupidity as a concept or idea, rather than *examples of* stupidity, say, or the causes of it. So a history of stupidity as a concept would be great, but not a history of stupid things.

I don't have a project in mind or anything, I'm just curious, really; so if anyone does come up with an example then a summary of the author's position etc would be brilliant.

Closed for Business Time

15:11 / 01.02.07

Well, a tad of googling took me here, to a book called Stupidity by Avital Ronell.

I also find reference to a work called Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid by Robert J. Sternberg.

Lastly, a chap called Lewis Anthony Dexter wrote a piece called On the politics and sociology of stupidity in our society (Social Problems, 1962). This last one I can dl and pm if you're interested.

08:18 / 02.02.07

Excellent, thank you!

Closed for Business Time

08:53 / 02.02.07

Was that an "excellent, thanks for digging up those references", or an "excellent, I expect that article to my inbox prontissimo, little man"? I'm happy with either, ya know.

09:26 / 02.02.07

Heh, sorry, explanatory PM on its way.

07:16 / 05.02.07

Question: When offering up critques of science, a defence I've encountered several times is what you might call the "science as collection of facts" argument. As if the scientific process simply builds up facts over the decades, free of ideology and outside influencees, almost as everything discovered is being being entered into a big book of knowledge. Something about this model seems inherently wrong to me - can anyone articulate my critque a little better for me or point me in the direction of some good references?

ORA ORA ORA ORAAAA!!

09:09 / 05.02.07

a very, very basic answer: facts are a) induced from observations, b) expressed in language. Observations and language are both theory-laden acts (i.e. not free of ideology - language should be pretty obvious, for observations see... um. Almost every philosopher of science since Kuhn), therefore facts cannot be induced or expressed in an ideological void.

Induction, also, is problematic as a method for ascertaining truth. As any number of observations doesn't mean you'll get the same result next time.

It's also the case that the scientific method is not merely a collection of facts, but a collection of metaphysics, ideologies, assumptions and facts, and also incorrect observations, flawed experimental design etc. Despite which, it does seem to be a fairly effective way of engaging with certain aspects of existence. But yeah, it can't be reduced to a 'collection of facts' because that ignores the sociological influences on/of science/scientists, etc. It's a social institution and an authority which legitimises many things - see advertising brandishing 'n scientists agree', scientifically formulated, etc etc, which wouldn't hold if scientists were just keepers of collections of facts.

Feyerabend has some good criticisms of the typical model of science which I can't bring to mind clearly enough to summarise/explicate. If you can get your hands on a book called 'What is this thing called science' by Chalmers, it's a very clear introduction to many influential past and present theories of science, written for a course at Sydney Uni but also pretty complete as is, simple to understand and not tedious (except if you've spent any time on any of the individual figures/theories discussed, in depth, previously, which will make that section kind of skippable).

hope that helps, at least some.

09:24 / 05.02.07

That is really helpful, thank you. I'm going to buy that book.

Any more?

ORA ORA ORA ORAAAA!!

10:24 / 05.02.07

I've lost all my notes, so I'm afraid not, but the chalmers book also has a suggested further reading list for each section, which will give you a good idea of what to follow up with for a given theory/ist. Which doesn't help right now, of course, or let you bulk-order from amazon, but hopefully someone else will come along shortly...

I can email you all the electronic articles from my uni's library for the course which basically deals with your question above, if you'd like, but I can't guarantee that they're all relevant. PM me if you're interested.

21:01 / 05.02.07

Saveloy - if you are interested in a high-theory deconstructive treatment, Avital Ronnell has a book called Stupidity that I found pretty interesting.

16:55 / 12.02.07

I'm reading a piece by Frantz Fanon, but it's an excerpt included in a reader and I haven't read anything else of his. Anything I should bear in mind while reading it?

10:48 / 14.02.07

Thanks, Jackie, I might see if I can get that through the library. Does it look at any specific areas / ideas, or come to any particular conclusions?

03:36 / 26.02.07

I read it a couple of years back and don't remember any specifics, just that I really enjoyed it - thought it was sharp and well-written - and planned, but never wrote, a paper based on its argument.

12:14 / 26.02.07

Saveloy, there is a dutch morosopher called Matthijs van Boxsel who has written extensively about stupidity. He wrote an encyclopedia on stupidity, I think it was translated itno English a few years ago.

here is his webadress ---> Stupidity

Hope this helps.

07:36 / 28.02.07

Excellent, thank you!

20:48 / 22.05.07

Could someone please tell me everything there is to know about Symbolist Hermeneutics and Andrés Ortiz-Osés?

I just stumbled across him in Wikipedia.

He is:
*Student of Hans-Georg Gadamer.
*Important Jungian thinker/mythological theorist in Spain.
*Part of the same crowd as Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade.
*A writer of aphorisms.
*Apparently not translated into English.

Is that last one correct? Anybody know more?

09:32 / 08.08.07

family favour, this one.
My Dad has written a short paper which references Jurgen Habermas' thinking. He has asked me (in my role as family philosophy student) what Habermas might mean when he speaks of the ‘language programme’ of 20th century philosophers. I can think of a few answers involving Wittgenstein, or more continental stuff to do with the structuralists, but this stuff was discussed in the year i'm retaking (i.e. the year i hardly attended).

So what is the 'language programme'?

13:15 / 08.08.07

My guess would be semiotics - I mean as a field of study. Wittgenstein + Saussure + Levi-Strauss and all that.
Someone else might (should) have a much better answer.

jentacular dreams

09:32 / 27.08.07

Bit of psychology one this, but when reading the news on the greek fires I learned that (no surprise) some of them are thought to stem from arson, which reminded me of a dream I had a year ago about being a compulsive arsonist. It was terrible, I kept feeling the compulsion to set fires to buildings, and ended up burning down an old church and running away (unlike most arsonists, who my limited readings indicate tend to actually enjoy watching their fires, I just turned and ran as soon as it was going). Even though I don't think any dream-people died, I felt some of the most guilty feelings I've ever had.

Now like most kids I had my time playing with matches. Fortunately there were no mishaps. But I can't help but wonder, to what extent do these experiences feed into pyromania and arson in adults. Does their fascination just never die, or is it something qualitively seperate from that childhood compulsion so many people share?

All Acting Regiment

19:37 / 03.10.07

I need to write an essay on Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway, and part of this will involve talking about the love she has for a woman whose name I forget. What I'm looking for is any books or journal articles (UK or on Jstor would be the best) that talk theory about female homosexuality.

All Acting Regiment

19:37 / 03.10.07

Er, please.

All Acting Regiment

19:43 / 03.10.07

Also, does anyone know a part of the Bible that sums up the Christian idea of marriage (for to show how VW rather wonderfully kicks it in the teeth).

19:48 / 03.10.07

Christian marriage: Probably St. Paul in Corinthians, although Song of Solomon is far older and deeper.

20:53 / 03.10.07

does anyone know a part of the Bible that sums up the Christian idea of marriage (for to show how VW rather wonderfully kicks it in the teeth).

Are you thinking of 1 Corinthians?

2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. . . .

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am.

9 But if they are not practising self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband

11 (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Lots more there . . .

All Acting Regiment

22:05 / 03.10.07

Yes, thanks for this.

jentacular dreams

08:12 / 05.10.07

There's also the oft-quoted Ephesians 5:21-32.

21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband.

Gendudehashadenough

00:13 / 28.10.07

In the Western Industrialized World, what is it called when somebody has two or more antithetical or conflicting drives? Does this negotiation have a prime exemplar? Does it always reflect the economics of industry?

Gratis and Thanks.

Good Intentions

05:55 / 01.11.07

Called by whom?

Hegellians, and Marxists following them, would just call it a contradiction even in their technical literature, or contradicting drives/forces/impulses.

If you're a Hegellian, you see contradictions everywhere, or rather, you see all progress as the resolution of contradictions. If you're a Marxist or critical theorist, you see all contradictions as arising from contradictions in the economic base/process/relationship (for most strains of Marxism), rather than seeing them in all economies of industries, which I think is an answer to your second question (in which case your question puts the cart before the horse).

Gendudehashadenough

21:14 / 02.11.07

I sort of meant to do that, given that questions of population and control are often intermixed in these writings and others on the nature of people as consumers and the manner in which this reflects choices regarding breeding.

I realize things like psychology and neuro-mechanics think differently deal with these things differently. Wanted to get some perspective 's all.

Good Intentions

04:48 / 08.11.07

I think you're making something rather simple out to be quite complicated. There are of course interesting stories to tell about how contradictions are resolved or trying to show how contradictions are systematic - perhaps what you're aiming at is the latter - but as for the condition of being under the effect of conflicting forces, well, that's a bog-standard position to be in, being as it is the condition of having conflicting forces work in on the object.

If you're talking about self-caused forces/impulses/drives, that is, a force that arises out of only the agent and nothing else (the way we would be if we had free will in its simplest form), then you'd need to explain why there are conflicting forces, but conflicting forces only seem to be of particular interest in their own right in such a self-causing scenario. In every other case, like mentioned above, being pulled in conflicting directions is simply an effect of being under the influence of conflicting forces. There is nothing whatsoever strange or in itself interesting about the scenario, for instance, where someone is hungry but doesn't want to eat what he has available because he's rationing himself, or someone who wants to introduce himself to an attractive stranger but is afraid of embarrassment.

22:11 / 23.11.07

A friend of mine is looking into all things Chalet School for a essay this year and I seem to remember some mention of Chalet School Literary Theory somewhere on the board? Is there anything specific or am I misremembering?

Closed for Business Time

11:03 / 27.11.07

What is it that some theorists (cultural, media, gender, philosophical) get out of psychoanalysis (broadly speaking), when as far as current psychological research goes it's about as dead as it gets?

Or put in another slighty different way - does it matter to non-pscyhologists reading and using say Jung, Lacan and Reich that from the perspective of mainstream pscyhology these theories are completely worthless?

14:00 / 27.11.07

You know, there are still Jungian analysts out there, right?

And, for that matter, Freudian ones, too.

I'm not sure how you're defining the "mainstream" here - Freud essentially invented the talking cure, which is a major component in any kind of therapy.

It seems like you're saying something akin to, "Mainstream medical science has dismissed Pasteur, so why do some people still think vaccines work?" Modern vaccines aren't made the same way Pasteur made them, but he hasn't been dismissed, exactly.

Closed for Business Time

14:39 / 27.11.07

I do know that there are many psychoanalysts out there grant, and I apologise for the unnecessarily snarky tone.

I don't however see that that is in any way a validation of psychoanalysis as an effective therapeutic intervention. Recent meta-analyses of the efficacy of modern psychoanalysis (which differs from orthodox Freudian p.a.) seem to suggest that the evidence is scant. However, that goes for most therapeutic interventions, including drugs. For a recent meta-analysis see here.

How do I define the mainstream? Well, take a look at the undergrad psychology textbooks out there. Psychoanalysis will be mentioned in most as a historically important branch of clinical psychology repackaged into very different although superficially similar therapies.
But don't take my word for it. This guy agrees. I don't believe he's alone in that.

The term "talking cure" was invented as such by Josef Breuer's patient Anna O. and later taken over by Freud. To claim that Freud or Breuer invented the use of conversation as a tool for helping the psychologically troubled person is contentious, I'd say. Much the same for the veracity of talk being a cure in the first place. Freud invented free association, but that's hardly the same. The religious roots are much older.

But my point was that if you look at experimental psychology, cognitive psychology, health psychology, social psychology etc etc as taught in universities, psychoanalytic ideas don't figure any more.

Tripartite structure of personality? Gone.
Dreams as the via rex to the unconscious? Gone.
The unconscious as envisaged by Freud? Gone!
Oedipus complex? Gone.

The list goes on and on.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5(6)7 8