tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post1171713261753683633..comments2024-03-29T02:03:49.151-04:00Comments on History Unfolding: Can reason beat emotion?David Kaiserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-82469283198490371502010-03-11T10:54:17.688-05:002010-03-11T10:54:17.688-05:00What you call "projecting current prejudices ...What you call "projecting current prejudices onto the past," I call figuring out where current prejudices came from, historically, so we can fix those problems and make the world more equitable. If you don't learn from your past, you're doomed to repeat it, right?<br /><br />I'm curious as to what you imagine less poor humanities "products" might be? (And I'd point out that you just betrayed the key to our different points of view -- humanists don't make "products," we foster critical thinking skills and aid in the creation of intelligent citizens who can decide for themselves based on rational encounters with their world. And you can't put a price tag on that or get job prospects from that, so in contemporary American consciousness, it isn't worth squat.)<br /><br />As I pointed out, critical theory can be made as political or as apolitical as you like. Feminist studies can be used simply to uncover and retell the lives, stories, and writings of women that have otherwise been overlooked, or it can be used to critique the social, political, economic, what have you structures that led to those lives being overlooked. Postmodernism can be used to bring to light how our sense of who we are as individuals is being redefined in a world that's going global and virtual, or it can be used to critique the social, political, economic, cultural, what have you effects of those changes on various peoples across the globe. <br /><br />... the same way that a conversation about the humanities can both observe changing trends in values, institutions, and education, or it can be (mis)used in the service of a social, political, cultural critiques.<br /><br />Sure, sometimes those critiques can go too far and run off the rails, but it's unfair to judge the entirety of humanistic discourse and its discipline based on the political agenda of a handful of thinkers who go beyond the pale, don't you think?<br /><br />By the way, I'd also point out that your response, instead of addressing the real issue I identified -- your accusation that contemporary humanistic study is "emotional" and contributes to the "emotionalism" of our modern day cultural climate -- took the, dare I say it, <i>emotional</i> route of bashing the discipline as irrelevant and tendentious. "College and grad school bull sessions from the late 1960s and 1970s," "offerings are so poor that they don't deserve any more money" -- sounds like gut-based, emotion-baiting rhetoric to me, if ever I heard it. <br /><br />Looks like someone could do with an English course.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-54676034450505737462010-02-15T11:21:20.201-05:002010-02-15T11:21:20.201-05:00Whether it's called critical theory, cultural ...Whether it's called critical theory, cultural studies, or postmodernism, it amounts to projecting current prejudices onto the past. Enrollments in the humanities have dropped because most undergraduates are not interested in reliving college and grad school bull sessions from the late 1960s and 1970s. In history, new trends also take the oppressive state and institutions for granted, rather than spending any time asking how things could be different. I am not sympathetic to complaints about falling humanities budgets because the product humanities departments are offering are so poor that they don't deserve any more money. I wish I could have done more about this situation myself, but I couldn't.David Kaiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-11634994208757360622010-02-15T10:27:48.881-05:002010-02-15T10:27:48.881-05:00You write: "Meanwhile, large segments of anot...You write: "Meanwhile, large segments of another growth industry, academia--including the humanities such as literary criticism and history--have explicitly rejected reason in favor of emotional approaches based upon the emotional issues of the late twentieth century. The academy thrives, ironically, not because of what it teaches, but because it remains the gateway to highly paid professions."<br /><br />The "growth" in the "industry" of academia is very largely a result of the transformation of universities into luxury "life experiences" for students and the gross ballooning of the administrative and "business" dimensions of running an academic institution. Of academic disciplines to see continued growth and prosperity for its students, the sciences, business, economics, and communications are at the top -- they produce desirable students with promising career futures, and draw opportunities for investment. <br /><br />The very last people to be experiencing any "growth" in academia these days are humanities departments -- the Modern Language Association has produced shocking figures about the steep decline in job opportunities for scholars in literature in language (over 50% of graduate students in literature do not find employment in the year that they complete their degree, and many linger in adjunct status for many years, liable to be released without notice based on the budgetary whims of the university). These part-time teachers, who make up 40% of the teaching force, receive shockingly little pay for their work. (<a href="http://www.mla.org/resources/documents/rep_employment/prof_employment/prof_employment2" rel="nofollow">link to source</a>)<br /><br />Could you clarify what you mean when you say that humanities scholars have "explicitly rejected reason in favor of emotional approaches based upon the emotional issues of the late twentieth century"? The only thing I can figure is that you're referring to critical theory, which attempts to make sense of aesthetic, cultural, and historical objects from a particular point of view, sometimes political, sometimes not. The aim of using critical theory is to help us encounter books, television, the media, political discourse, and the past <b>not</b> with an emotional, gut-based response, but with considered distance, so that we can say something useful without getting overwhelmed by the complexity and power of art and history.<br /><br />I've got to say, I'm shocked that you look to the humanities, home to some of the most outspokenly critical voices against the rising trend of emotion-baiting politics and "say it until it's true" rhetoric, as a target for the kind of issues you address here.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-63420209844703105352009-09-15T01:27:59.582-04:002009-09-15T01:27:59.582-04:00Kaiser writes,"The battle between emotion and...Kaiser writes,"The battle between emotion and reason has been a recurring theme of these posts for years, all the more so since we have replaced a President who proudly relied almost completely upon emotion--his "instincts"--with one who turns more instinctively towards logic and reason than any President since John F. Kennedy." <br /><br />I would like to see you prove this assertion about Bush 43, and then pass your thesis through a gauntlet of academics. What a really, really, really (that's three "reallys") silly statement. Don't most decisions nowadays get done with institutions such as think tanks? Are they making seat of the pants, emotional decisions? <br /><br />You really are a pompous academic, aren't you? My advice: get off your high horse.<br /><br />You in the Naval War Collge? Oh, good grief.Stan Kreisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-5276193046117189072009-08-27T22:20:55.271-04:002009-08-27T22:20:55.271-04:00Maybe I'm wrong but winning 48 of 50 states in...Maybe I'm wrong but winning 48 of 50 states in the 1936 election was quiet a feat given that 50 states did not yet exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-42303211715486987372009-08-25T15:52:33.122-04:002009-08-25T15:52:33.122-04:00Whats your view of Obama bowing to the Muslim king...Whats your view of Obama bowing to the Muslim king?<br />My stomach still churns over that incedential incedent and the only benign explination is that he is simply clueless.<br />But I do have a more cynicle point of view.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14838958487154238102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-88045664802030665732009-08-03T22:16:04.321-04:002009-08-03T22:16:04.321-04:00Reason has already beat emotion. See http://actual...Reason has already beat emotion. See http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-48049797944572710152009-07-30T10:27:36.640-04:002009-07-30T10:27:36.640-04:00Your Roosevelt comments and quotes are "spot ...Your Roosevelt comments and quotes are "spot on". However your blunder on the 911 caller in the Gates matter is shockingly similar to Obama's initial contribution to the issue. But you seem to be able to readily dismiss Obama's mistake, so I asume you'll grant yourself the same exception from personal responsibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-1281793817339273972009-07-29T20:08:30.706-04:002009-07-29T20:08:30.706-04:00Mr. Kaiser may have studied history but his object...Mr. Kaiser may have studied history but his objective today seems to rewrite it. <br /><br />Mr. Kaiser do you believe that the U.S. Constitution is a binding contract between the citizens of this country and our government? If so not one of your comments is in any way reflective of that.<br /><br />You point out that "Under Roosevelt marginal tax rates on the richest Americans reached 91%; now Nancy Pelosi is trying to sneak 50% rates on incomes of one million or more into the health bill, a proposal to which the President declares himself "open."" An unbiased reporter of history would also inform the reader that same 91% tax code contained a myriad of allowable income deductions and loopholes which the richest Americans used to reduce their taxable income to next to nothing. Those deductions and loophole do not exist today.<br /><br />As pointed out in a previous comment you need to be less biased if you seek credibility.<br /><br />You take great pleasure in selecting business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism and war profiteering as enemies of peace. Why did you not mention the U.S. Congress?<br /><br />Does your recollection of history not include Barney Frank and others who coerced the banking industry to make untenable loans to the "unfortunate"? Those forced loans and the purchase of them by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the primary cause of the current financial mess we're in right now. The key is sir, if you don't put that in the history books it will never have happened.<br /><br />Good job!<br /><br />I do not have the time or space to call you to task on the many other half truths contained in your writings but an educated reader would recognize your agenda is not to provide an education in history but to provide an education in history as you see it necessary to further your agenda.Woody Hansonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-30560592640263229822009-07-29T16:01:56.708-04:002009-07-29T16:01:56.708-04:00I do agree that several industries (healthcare, de...I do agree that several industries (healthcare, defense etc)rely on fear and emotion to turn a profit. However, I feel that when it comes to healthcare, your tone is unnecessarily derisive. I am referring to your discussion about how "fear of death" makes people seek unnecessary medical tests and screenings. People should be concerned about their health and not treat it so nonchalantly. My experience in healthcare has shown me that most people, are in fact, very careless when it comes to their health. Several patients are non-compliant with medications and difficult to schedule for appointments. I think we should be advocating for a system whereby patients are rewarded for staying on top of their healthcare needs (visiting their GP regularly, eating well and exercising). Plus, you are not a physician. You are not necessarily an authority on whether or not people seek unnecessary care.Nikhilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-58847990016605776692009-07-28T17:45:09.193-04:002009-07-28T17:45:09.193-04:00I find the idea that the current healthcare discus...I find the idea that the current healthcare discussion pits "emotion" against "reason" startling and inadequate. The facts of what nationalized healthcare would look like are readily available in Europe, Canada and, here at home, in Massachusetts. Few Americans would be satisfied with that approach. The vast majority of Americans are well served under the current system and would be better served if they made decisions based on prices and service, which they would if insurance focused only on catastrophic medical situations. As we all know from basic economics, when goods are free, consumers will consume as much as they can obtain which is causing the current "medicalization" of so many normal conditions. But the single fastest way to reduce medical expense is tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance expense. The motivation for so-called healthcare reform is a naked bid by leftists for control. The author's contemptuous and disrepectful view of all who are in "red" states as "emotional" because of the issues they support is indicative of arrogance. Some political factions in this country may not approve or respect the choices their fellow citizens are making, but it's unacceptable to try to control or limit their choices by limiting their freedoms. Further, the idea of passing a healthcare bill that has not been thoroughly read and reviewed by all elected officials and their staffs, as well as all members of the public who are interested, is also arrogant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-67733829664809191192009-07-28T10:48:55.842-04:002009-07-28T10:48:55.842-04:00"We had to struggle with the old enemies of p..."We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace - business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering."<br /><br />Amazing how well that statement fits today as well as 1936. It's depressing as well - are these eternal forces that we have to battle? Or just reoccuring conditions of human nature?J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01031567700911395326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-15021602901602179122009-07-27T17:08:14.880-04:002009-07-27T17:08:14.880-04:00sorry forgot to proofread 911sorry forgot to proofread 911Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-75573841855291096742009-07-27T17:06:49.395-04:002009-07-27T17:06:49.395-04:00Sorry you got it wrong Mr Kasier, the 991 tape of ...Sorry you got it wrong Mr Kasier, the 991 tape of the belligerent professor Gates reveals no identification of race on the part of the 911 caller. You simply desired not to point your blame finger at a the professor since he's a man of color and you fear reprisal just like the obama-mania media and most of our most honorable congressional representatives. Your credibility is in the spittoon sir.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com