From pericles@temple.edu Sat Nov 24 05:30:23 2001 Received: from mailscan5.cac.washington.edu (mailscan5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.14]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.11.6+UW01.08/8.11.6+UW01.10) with SMTP id fAODULn114652 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 05:30:21 -0800 Received: FROM mxu1.u.washington.edu BY mailscan5.cac.washington.edu ; Sat Nov 24 05:30:17 2001 -0800 Received: from femail25.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail25.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.15]) by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.11.6+UW01.08/8.11.6+UW01.10) with ESMTP id fAODUHB29909 for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 05:30:17 -0800 Received: from temple.edu ([24.37.50.60]) by femail25.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20011124133016.MMRD5057.femail25.sdc1.sfba.home.com@temple.edu> for ; Sat, 24 Nov 2001 05:30:16 -0800 Message-ID: <3BFFA12A.5627F2B5@temple.edu> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 08:31:21 -0500 From: Dan Tompkins Reply-To: pericles@temple.edu X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: The mind midden References: <3BFBAAAA.13706.3D484BBF@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is essential to distinguish SS's fantasies ("wall full of movies about women cops, women adventurers, women pretending to be men, in which men have been reduced to the equivalent of punching bags for women") from Steve's effort to raise a discussion about feminist epistemology. Epistemology is a legitimate academic subject, and Steve clearly knows a lot about it--more than many folks with different training or inclinations. Even if we don't agree with Steve, and can't keep up with him, we can learn from him when he talks about Kant and kindred topics. On the basis of all available evidence, we have very little to learn from SS. That is why folks get fed up with him. I would not get into an argument with Steve about epistemology without knowing more and working up my own position carefully. But there are other useful ways to talk about academic feminism, and I've suggested some. It is certainly true that folks have not taken up the issues as defined ("refused to confront the issues"): this means not that the discussion was worthless, but that there are other issues, other ways to talk about feminism. Steve's catalogue of four "factors" (below) carry the very great danger that it may be taken to be exhaustive, implying that anyone who fails to argue on the terms laid down (in effect, n -1 members of the listserv) is ignorant, arrogant, indolent or a trimmer. Most of us would not find this flattering. I have to suggest that with this catalogue we move from a discussion with serious philosophical potential to one that is simply rhetorical. Like Diodotus' division of his opponents (Thuc. 3.42.2) into the stupid and the self-interested, the catalogue conveys the impression of a totality, implying that other list members don't just disagree but are morally deficient to boot. Few people would contest Huntington's remark about "intellectual controversy," but equally few would call controversy along these lines "intellectual." It's not hard to see why folks won't buy into a discussion on these terms: who wants to get called names? I think that Steve brings a lot to this list, but that as long as it gets presented in this binarist manner it won't generate the discussion that it might. Dan Tompkins "Steven J. Willett" wrote: > > On 20 Nov 2001, at 20:08, Ivan Van Laningham wrote: > > > Said defense was also prior to the sweeping blast of archaic > > sexism from Japan, which now seems positively quaint, if not actually > > amusing, in the face of such reptilian reactionarianism, quite worthy of > > Jesse Helms, as given below: > > This is not only nonsense, it betrays a complete inability to read. I > raised serious issues about feminist epistemology and > foundational concepts as embodied in current historical or literary > criticism. There was not a sexist word in my three posts, and > certainly nothing archaic let alone Helmsian, but if IVL thinks he can > find them, post them for discussion. This is a straight ad hominem > attack from one who knows nothing about the case. > > The refusal of Dan or anyone else to confront the issues can be > attributed to a number of factors: > > 1. Ignorance, as in the case of IVL. > > 2. Assumption that the foundational concepts are settled and > beyond dispute, which is intellectual arrogance. > > 3. General fear of public commitment to debate, which is after all > indolence. > > 4. Willingness to travel with a debatable ideology because of > larger political commitments, which is trimming. > > Many of us forget that "The quest for truths is synonymous with > intellectual controversy" as Samuel Huntington said. While I do not > agree with much that he writes, and certainly not with his clash of > cultures thesis, this is a fact many on this list would like to abolish in > the interests of a set agenda placed beyond dispute. > > SS has his own opinions which bear no relation to mine. But unless > we are going to start carving out exceptions to appropriate speech > not already covered by netiquette, he has the right to post his views > however repugnant to some. The delete key and kill file offer ready > recourse to the repugnance. I thought the long, dreary discussion > earlier this year about ostracizing him the lowest point in the history > of the list, which often sounds little better than a chat room for > imbecilic jokes, catty asides, complaints about student bloopers, > acerbic put-downs, conanobrienisms, bibliographical citations, > diatribes about grammarless students and the occasional > delectation of a sexual squib. > > We are living at a time of momentous, far-reaching political and > strategic change. Nothing of that is reflected on this list. Week- > after-week Victor Davis Hanson has been producing op-ed pieces > for the National Review supporting the war on terrorism with > judicious if highly selective illustrations from Classical history. > Whatever one may think of the effort, his Classics live vitally within > the ambit of his political and military thinking. Here one has the > impression that our Classics really are dead artifacts in the midden > of the mind. > > > > > > > > > ====================================== > Steven J. Willett > Shizuoka University of Art and Culture > Dept. of International Culture, Faculty of Cultural Policy > 1794-1 Noguchi > Hamamatsu City, Japan 430-8533 > Tel/Autofax: (53) 457-6142 > Japan email: willett@suac.ac.jp > US email: sjwillett@earthlink.net -- Daniel P. Tompkins Director, Intellectual Heritage Program Temple University 214 Anderson Hall, 1114 West Berks Street Philadelphia, PA 19122-6090 215/204 4900; 215/204-2359 (fax) pericles@temple.edu Check our website: http://courses.temple.edu/ih .