The natives are getting restless so I will cancel the timeout and welcome back the usual suspects. Thank you for taking a week off. It gave a number of people a chance to comment who do not usually show up on the blog and I think that was a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Prof. Wolff,
Thank you for the reprieve I have been chafing at the bit to submit some comments, but dutifully respected your request for a moratorium. In addition to the below (which is rather long and relates to an issue which I believe is significant from both a philosophical and a political perspective), I have posted a comment on your “Do Not Despair” post of 12/16 and on the FYI post of 12/12.
What I am about to write has been roiling around in my mind for some time, and it may be regarded by some of your readers as so impious that I should summarily be cast into the nether depths of Hades. So be it. I feel intellectually compelled to raise this issue, and the issue is this – I find it difficult to square your adherence to the political philosophy of anarchism with your criticism of the conduct of certain politicians, in particular your criticism of the conduct of Donald Trump. In “In Defense of Anarchism,” you write (limitations of space prevent me from quoting full paragraphs, so I have selected particular passages which I believe for these purposes adequately encapsulate the thrust of your analysis):
“The responsible man is not capricious or anarchic, for he does acknowledge himself bound by moral constraints. But he insists that he alone is the judge of those constraints. He may listen to the advice of others, but he makes it his own by determining for himself whether it is good advice.”
“Since man’s responsibility for his actions is a consequence of his capacity for choice, he cannot give it up or put it aside. He can refuse to acknowledge it, however, either deliberately or by simply failing to recognize his moral condition. All men refuse to take responsibility for their actions at some time or other during their lives, and some men so consistently shirk their duty that they present more the appearance of overgrown children than of adults.”
“Taking responsibility for one’s actions means making the final decisions about what one should do. For the autonomous man, there is no such thing, strictly speaking, as a command.” (Italics in the original.)
“The moral condition demands that we acknowledge responsibility and achieve autonomy wherever and whenever possible. Sometimes this involves moral deliberation and reflection; at other times, the gathering of special, even technical, information. The contemporary American citizen, for example, has an obligation to master enough modern science to enable him to follow debates about nuclear policy and come to an independent conclusion. There are great, perhaps insurmountable, obstacles to the achievement of a complete and rational autonomy in the modern world. Nevertheless, so long as we recognize our responsibility for our actions, and acknowledge the power of reason within us, we must acknowledge as well the continuing obligations to make ourselves the authors of such commands as we may obey.” (Footnote omitted.)
“The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state’s claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are the laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy.” (Italics in the original.)
(Continued)
In the balance of the essay you analyze various forms and variations of government and evaluate the extent to which they succeed in maximizing individual autonomy and conclude that they all come up short. You offer recommendations regarding how government can be designed in order to provide the best maximization of autonomy, while still imperfect in doing so.
Neither you nor I, nor any other readers of your blog, can know to what extent Trump’s actions are intended, in his mind, to maximize his autonomy, at the same time as conforming to what he regards as his moral imperative. Moreover, none of us can know that of anybody else. So, what has been criticized of Trump as displays of an “overgrown child,” for example, may just be displays of Trump actually embodying the autonomous individual which you maintain we all have an obligation to embody. He rejects advice from others, he rejects the authority of the Constitution, and, when it comes to science, he maintains that he has done his own research and has determined that “he knows more than the scientists.” He is, one might say, the perfect embodiment of anarchism. And this could be said of every Republican politician, or any other human being for that matter, who has been subjected to criticism by the readers of this blog (including by myself). How are we to know what has gone through their minds which we construe as a form of selfishness, but to them could just be their asserting their autonomy, in conformity with what they regard as their moral condition? When does assertion of one’s autonomy in the face of authority (marching to the beat of a different drummer) no longer constitute a moral assertion of one’s autonomy, but crosses over into something else (dedication to self-indulgence), and how can we recognize it without being able to read the agent’s mind? How can one be accused of malfeasance when there is no legal system which legitimately requires feasance? Are your criticism of Trump not, at bottom, criticisms of his failure to comply with the authority that the law and the Constitution demand of him, rather than exercising what he regards as his rightful autonomy? Are you not, in effect, rejecting anarchism in favor of respect for lawful authority?
I have a different perspective. I believe that I, as a sentient being, have an obligation to respect the needs and aspirations of other sentient beings – as long as those needs and aspirations also respect the needs and aspirations of other sentient beings, e.g., do not cause others pain, do not without legitimate justification (i.e., commission of a crime) deprive them of their physical freedom - and that this requires compromise and coordination, which in turn requires acceptance of the authority mutually reached through the exercise of compromise and coordination. It is true, as solipsists note, that I cannot know with certainty that those who appear to be sentient beings like myself are truly sentient beings, and therefore are entitled to my respect, but, by the same token, I cannot prove that they are not sentient beings, and therefore are not entitled to my mutual respect, and the obligation to make an effort to cooperate and coordinate with them. I therefore, like Pascal, prefer to err on the side of belief, rather than disbelief. (Regarding the criticism that this perspective does not validate subordinating one’s autonomy to the authority of laws or a Constitution which were not the product of one’s own compromise and coordination, but the presumed compromise and coordination of presumed sentient beings now dead, I recognize the impracticality of establishing new laws and a new Constitution with every new generation. The fact that those laws and Constitution were the product of compromise and coordination by deceased sentient beings is sufficient to legitimize them.)
(Continued)
The above perspective is inconsistent with, and contrary to, anarchism, because it recognizes not just that sentient beings, by necessity and pragmatism, need in some measure to subordinate their autonomy to some form of authority. I maintain that they have an obligation to do so, out of respect for their fellow sentient beings. In a universe where the solipsists are correct, there can be no moral obligations – how can one have a moral obligation when one is the only sentient being? And in a universe where the solipsists are incorrect, how can one have a primary moral obligation only to one’s own autonomy rather than simultaneously to others as well as oneself? The very concept of morality cannot exist in a solipsistic world. In such a world, one’s only obligation is to maximize one’s autonomy, since, practically speaking, that is all there is. Since the concept of morality only emerges in a world which is not solipsistic, it must by necessity entail the contemplation of the obligation of each sentient being to his/her fellow sentient beings. Such an obligation is inconsistent with a morality which is based exclusively on maximizing the autonomy of any single sentient being, because such maximization necessarily fails to take into account the needs and aspirations of one’s fellow sentient beings. Anarchism, the philosophical doctrine which advocates maximizing one’s autonomy, is therefore not so much moral as amoral. (I could analogize this to Wittgenstein’s assertion that there is no such thing as a secret language. The very existence of a language requires an interaction between at least two sentient beings. By the same token, the very concept of morality requires the existence of at least two sentient beings and is antithetical to either sentient being maximizing its autonomy without taking into account the needs and aspirations of its fellow sentient being(s).) (Is what I have written consistent with, and perhaps an alternative way of expressing, your earlier post regarding the conflict between Kant’s epistemology and his ethical philosophy, i.e., there can be no duty in the absence of interaction between different noumenal agents? None of what I have written may be particularly original and may be no more than colloquially stating what some political philosophers have stated in more sophisticated and elegant terms.)
Given that obligation, I can with consistency criticize Trump for his unwillingness to subordinate his autonomy to the law – by, for example, refusing to concede the election to Biden, which the authority of the Constitution bestows on Biden, authority which Trump, exercising his autonomy, has refused to do. And, by the same token, I can criticize with consistency, the conduct of other politicians which, consistent with the perspective of an anarchist, they would claim is simply their expressing their autonomous selves, which requires that they flout authority, but which I maintain demonstrates a failure to respect the needs and aspirations of their fellow sentient beings.
I agree with Prof. Wolff that it was good to hear from people who don't usually comment here. I'm planning to comment less frequently here than I have in the past, in the hope that that will help to encourage this trend (i.e., non-usual-suspects commenting) to continue.
I too am planning to comment less frequently than in the past.
I feel that while my suspension from the blog and that of MS were in some ways justified, yours, LFC, was not.
s.w.
Be that as it may, I was fine with it.
LFC and s. wallerstein,
I did not view Prof. Wolff’s request for a moratorium as a disciplinary suspension, so to speak. I thought it was more of an empirical experiment to determine if the accusations that the abundance of comments by myself, and perhaps others, which was characterized as a lack of blog civility, was inhibiting others from joining in the discussion by submitting comments of their own had merit. If it did have merit, then one would have expected an increase in the volume of comment submissions by readers who had not significantly commented in the past. While such an increase did occur on the first day of the moratorium, and new voices were heard, this increase did not continue over the duration of the moratorium, which, I submit, means that those who wish to comment have not been inhibited from doing so by virtue of the multiplicity of comments by some dedicated commenters. I would be interested in knowing how Prof. Wolff interprets the comment data which was generated by the moratorium.
MS--you have a lot of intelligent things to say. Have you considered getting your own blog? If you did that you could get of the mothers milk of the comment section of this vibrant blog. You can do it MS! Please stop hijacking this comment section with your intelligent but verbose posts.
Anonymous,
I am at a loss to know how to respond to your criticism. If you have something to contribute to the blog, e.g., taking issue with what I have written above, say it. Did you contribute any comments during the moratorium? Were you inspired to contribute more comments by my absence? How does one “hijack” a blog with intelligent comments because they are verbose? Would you prefer unintelligent comments? To hijack something, i.e., a plane, a vessel, a locomotive, a newspaper, means to take total control of the medium, to give orders and expect them to be obeyed. How do my intelligent, but verbose, comments do that? I am giving no one orders; I am prohibiting no one else from commenting. There is plenty of room for you to make a contribution if you wish.
AOC is slighlty smarter than a box of rocks but she's now the face of the Democrats. I can see why the republicans don't want to give up power. Its wrong not to reliquish power, but stupidity in responsible positions of leadership is just as wrong. I guess everybody has a separate definition of stupid, though.
MS,
If you had your own blog you could thoughtfully post all you have to say and readers could take note and comment on your rich content. You essentially are leeching on to this established blog and are appropriating the comment section as your own blog. Take that leap of faith and get a blog! Just a suggestion. If not, write away here.
Anonymous,
You are using terminology rather loosely here. A leech is a parasite, an organism which draws its sustenance by latching onto another organism, while contributing nothing to the victim’s life or vigor. I do not believe I am doing anything like that. For example, my comment above regarding Prof. Wolff’s essay, “In Defense of Anarchism,” is pointing out what I regard as an inconsistency in the political philosophy of anarchism and criticism of some politicians for their failure to conform with certain expressions of conventional authority. I find such criticism inconsistent with a philosophy which extols maximizing one’s personal autonomy in accordance with one’s morality, even in the face of authority which demands conformity. I then offer a different perspective that I believe is more consistent with the appropriateness of such criticism. A leech would not do that. If you disagree with my analysis, and believe I am misconstruing the philosophy of anarchism, you are free to take issue with my comments.
It's just the way social life works.
If I go to someone's dinner party (let's imagine the blog is one) and I talk a lot and after a while, someone takes me aside and suggests that I speak a little less because I'm making everyone uncomfortable, then the point isn't that everyone is "free" to answer me and that I have six PhD's from Harvard and that I was national debate champion when I was in college and that my sister and all my dates say that I'm a fascinating conversationalist. The point is that I'm making people uncomfortable, tout court.
What's more, little by little several others suggest that I might speak a bit less and finally, our host politely asks me (and a few others) to remain silent for a while.
Now whether or not I'm more learned and a better conversationalist than the other guests, the consensus seems to be that many people would like me to talk less and no one seems to be demanding that I talk more, although several do point out that I'm very intelligent.
That's social life. By the way, I'm holding myself to a 2 comment a day quota and this is my second comment.
A friendly offering to MS, and anyone else who (like myself!) finds it a struggle not to be verbose:
Kurt Vonnegut's advice for writers -
1. Find a subject you care about.
2. Do not ramble, though.
3. Keep it simple.
4. Have the guts to cut.
5. Sound like yourself.
6. Say what you mean to say.
7. Pity the readers.
MS, I also wonder if you have the same sort of "perfectionist" streak as myself: I often make the mistake of treating conversation as if the goal is to express one's thoughts with the utmost clarity, consistency, accuracy, and completeness, leaving as little room as possible for objection and misinterpretation.
I think that's a fine goal for certain academic/professional purposes, but it tends to be way out-of-place in an environment where the discussion is less formal and high-stakes. Otherwise, what I've had to learn (very imperfectly) is that it's totally fine in most conversation - even welcome! - to relax your expectations a bit, and be content to just "get your point across" in a way that isn't super-demanding on your listeners or on yourself.
I know what it's like to pressure yourself to say something that "does complete justice" to your thoughts (as if that's the most important thing in the world!), and then, even if you do manage to say it, to immediately look back on what you've said and scrutinize it down to the tiniest detail: "Was that really the best word for what I had in mind? Did I really have adequate basis for that claim? Was it consistent with everything I said earlier? In what ways is it open to misinterpretation? In what ways might I possibly be straining the listener's patience, or causing offense, or...?"
The challenge is simply to shut that voice up and teach it to say, "Eh, close enough." Or if you do indulge it, to indulge it sparingly.
s. wallerstein,
If one is going to make an argument from analogy, in order to be persuasive, the analogy has to be apt. I believe an analogy between a cocktail party, where people are physically present in a certain circumscribed physical space, is a rather inapt analogy for a written blog, where no one is physically present in a circumscribed physical space – where no one can talk over another guest; where no one’s loud talk can prevent another guest from being heard; where no one incessant talking, i.e., commenting, prevents others at the cocktail party from getting a word in edgewise; where no one’s long, written comment is comparable to a guest’s half-hour monologue which prevents others from making any contribution to the discussion. Moreover, I did respect Prof. Wolff’s request and remained silent for seven days. And aside from my initial three-space comment regarding a subject which I believes merits discussion, all of my other comments have been in response to criticisms, which I do not think should count against any quota.
I agree with s. wallerstein. I see this blog as a place to have a conversation, not to make or listen to the written version of a speech. I say that having admittedly, at times, been guilty on this blog of violating my own standard. My wife tells me I have a tendency to pontificate.
Michael,
I will be brief, since I have shopping chores to do.
What you are recommending is sloppy writing to sloppily express sloppy thinking, and I am constitutionally disinclined to engage in such. And, frankly, I am fairly confident that Prof. Wolff is disinclined to engage in such, be impressed by such, or to encourage such as well.
That would seem to oversimplify things. Conversation isn't either slop or non-slop. Let me try again to illustrate what I'm getting at:
I am not a mathematician or logician, and have hardly taken the first look at Principia Mathematica, but my impression from the outside is that it's the sort of work that would take pages upon pages to fully elucidate the logical structure of a sentence like: "2+2=4."
Earlier I spoke of the supposed goal of conversation as "to express one's thoughts with the utmost clarity, consistency, accuracy, and completeness, leaving as little room as possible for objection and misinterpretation" - and I suggested this is often a bad way to look at conversation. But suppose that's wrong: Then we should all aspire to speak the way Russell and Whitehead write in PM (which can hardly be surpassed in terms of clarity and consistency, the virtues of logical reasoning); and it follows that the sentence "2+2=4" is an instance of "sloppy writing to sloppily express sloppy thinking."
Surely something has gone wrong here...
There is a professor, Homi K. Bhabha of Harvard, who has insightful things to say, but you have to spend time deciphering the words. Is it worth the time and effort to solve the linguistic puzzle and ascertain the meaning? Certainly yes if one is trying to solve the worlds problems but no if one is at a cocktail party. At the cocktail party he would be called a pretentious oaf or something of that nature. In academia he would be called difficult but insightful. But if he let his guard down at the cocktail party he would be just fine. But he annoys me I have to work so hard to get the thought.
I have to admit that during the moratorium there were more times that I had a desire to write a comment here than usual. Not that I had anything very interesting or important to say. Maybe it was more along the lines of not appreciating a privilege until it is lost or something like that. Well this observation is hardly important but I will add it to the comments section in some kind of celebration of my unmutedness. Which doesn't appear to be a word according to the red line under it but it won't be the first time I made mistakes in a comment.
MS,
I think precisely the point is that if you had your own blog you could avoid "sloppy writing to sloppily express sloppy thinking". You could make every post extremely precise and argumentatively accurate (or at least to an extent that you want to). But RPW's posts often aren't like this, although they sometimes are of this analytical nature. And so often the comments follow the character of the posts, casually remarking on matters.
To resume the dinner party example, if you were invited for an evening to someone's house and over dinner they began to very precisely elaborate on their new proof of metaphysical freedom, it would be perfectly normal, in fact encouraged, to engage in such a precise and argumentative way. After all we seek clarity above all else in this context.
But if they just begin to remark about some more informal topic, say the state of the Republican party, and S. Wallerstein's story begins to unfold, then obviously the correct response isn't "well I strive for absolute analytical correction in all my conversations". Conversation and discussion is perhaps the prime example of something governed by context dependent rules.
But if you had your own blog then the constant and unwavering set of rules could be the rules you apparently wish to operate under. And here's another thing: there is nothing wrong with you holding yourself to those rules all the time. But there is an issue where every comment which appears on the blog you view as immediately up for attack if it doesn't obey the rules of conversation which you hold yourself to. But this isn't particularly complicated an issue, it's merely a prime example in favour of epistemic contextualism. DeRose would have a field day!
Not disagreeing w the above comment by AJH, but from MS's standpoint it's the case that fewer people would likely read a blog post by MS on his own blog than would read a comment by him here. (That's just a matter of the likely number of readers, and there are of course other pertinent considerations, as AJH notes.)
I happened, just yesterday, to come across a book review of Frankfurt’s On Bullshit by Karl Pfeifer (Dialogue, 2006). “Think,” Pfeifer says, “of the nerdish expositor, who holds forth on this or that topic and just goes on and on in unselfconsciousness sincerity (so there is no attempt to misrepresent or ‘get away with something’), telling us more than we need or want to know. Such a person may indeed be speaking whereof he knows, and with complete regard for the truth. But something about him is just not sensible: he is going beyond what the situation calls for and much of what he says, relative to the context, is just so much hot air. The relevant truths he has to contribute may even get lost in a wealth of details. The sheer bulk of information may serve to confuse rather than inform. As the saying goes, ‘Bullshit baffles brains.’ The Germans have a word for this sort of bullshitter: Klugscheißer (literally, one who shits wisdom, cleverness, or the like).”
I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist. MS, you’re sharp and knowledgeable, but I’m inclined to think that you’re also something of a Klugscheißer.
MS,
There is a wealth of literature pertaining to Trump’s mental condition (pathological, or malignant narcissism). Leaving aside the details of the diagnosis, his behavior is pathological. As such, his thought and actions are determined or compelled by the conditions of his psyche. In such a case one can neither be autonomous or make moral decisions.
If Trump just had a slight bit of self-awareness and the willingness and ability to therefore change, he in all likelihood would have been able to get re-elected. But he couldn't do it. That level of pathology is clear and not fit for the highest position in the country.
I will endeavor to be as brief as possible. You are all misinterpreting the point I was seeking to make regarding the philosophy of anarchism and its application to a person like Trump. Anyone who has read my previous comments knows that I believe Trump is a mentally deranged, sadistic, narcissistic, despicable human being, and that I agree these conclusions can be legitimately made by virtue of observing his behavior, even though we cannot know what his mental processes are. I maintain that because I believe every human being has a moral obligation to take into consideration the needs and aspirations of his/her fellow human beings, and as part of that obligation to cooperate with said other human beings in devising laws that accommodate as best as reasonably possible the mutual needs and aspirations of all said human beings and to conform one’s behavior to the mutually agreed upon laws that emerge from this cooperation. By virtue of this, I can judge and criticize others, including Trump, who flout the law and think only of themselves.
My point was that such judgment and criticism of his behavior is not legitimately possible under a philosophy of anarchism, where the primary moral obligation of every individual is to their own autonomy, which, as Prof. Wolff points out in his post in response to my criticism, requires that every individual who has a right to maximize their autonomy has a concomitant right to flout and disregard any state authority, including the state’s laws, since no state is de jure legitimate. Prof. Wolff maintains that the decision to obey the illegitimate laws of the illegitimate state is just a rational decision which he and others make, but which decisions are not morally compelled, they are just accommodations of one’s primary moral obligation to one’s own autonomy to the reality of the power of the state. Under this view, however, the person, like Trump, who flouts the law can be said actually to being more moral than the person who conforms to the law, because under the philosophy of anarchism, Trump’s first and highest moral obligation is to maximize his autonomy. But then one cannot legitimately criticize someone like Trump who appears to be doing exactly that, and without knowing his mental processes to determine if it is truly his intent to maximize his autonomy as a moral obligation, we cannot determine if in fact he is being a true anarchist, or just a self-indulgent a.h. I, by contrast, reject the premise that one’s highest moral obligation is to maximize one’s autonomy. I maintain the contrary – that one’s highest moral obligation is to cooperate with other sentient beings in order to maximize the mutual needs and aspirations of the group. This in turn requires as a moral obligation subordinating one’s autonomy to the rules and laws which emerge by virtue of that cooperation. This allows me to criticize and judge Trump by his behavior, regardless whether he believes he his primary moral obligation is to maximize his autonomy.
Is this as clear as mud?
GJ,
Yes, I admit, I sometimes am a Klugsheisser -a smart ass – about some things. But I was not being a smart ass regarding my critique of anarchism and what I regard an its internal inconsistency when those who espouse anarchism as a philosophy, then proceed to criticize the behavior of those who are flouting the law, since flouting the law is an integral part of the philosophy of anarchism. I was being quite serious.
After the deepest consideration, I have decided that "the usual suspects" is an insult. さようなら👋
Damn- I hope you aren't going to challenge the Professor to a duel. If you do, may I suggest a crossword duel- I hear he is deadly at them.
MS
I have no intention of getting into a long back and forth w you on this, but my view, similar to some others (such as C. Mulvaney's above), is that Trump does not "appear to be" (your words) maximizing his autonomy in any legible philosophical sense of that phrase. He doesn't have the conceptual equipment to be interested in trying to maximize his autonomy. As Murdoch occasionally has one of her fictional characters say, he lacks the concept. Not only of autonomy but also its opposite in this context, heteronomy. These ideas would mean nothing to him. One can't consciously try to maximize one's autonomy if one doesn't understand what the phrase means, or so I'd suggest.
LFC,
Your argument is circular. You could not know precisely what Trump’s, or anyone else’s, mental processes are. You are inferring what they are by virtue of how erratic and irrational his outward, observable behavior is. That behavior could be the sign of a deeply disturbed human being who should be institutionalized. Alternatively, it could be the sign of a person whose very instincts – even without reading “In Defense of Anarchism” - are to maximize his autonomy by flouting law and convention to the extreme, just as the philosophy of anarchism dictates. My point is simply that if you are devoutly believe in anarchism as a political philosophy, then how can you consistently criticize someone based on their observable behavior in breaking every convention, every regulation, every law that they are immoral, or despicable, or detestable, when they are doing precisely what your political philosophy says that it is their moral obligation to assert their autonomy to the maximum, which entails disregarding the laws and institutions of the illegitimate de jure government, particularly when those who profess anarchism only accommodate the illegitimate de jure government as a rational decision to avoid the punishment that government can inflict for disobeying it, but do not assert that that accommodation is itself a moral obligation which overrides the primary moral obligation of maximizing one’s autonomy?
But we don’t have to use Trump as the only example. How about Mitch McConnell, or Newt Gingrich, or any Republican whose politics and policies we criticize as immoral, or insensitive to the rights of the downtrodden, or etc. etc. etc. No one would claim that McConnell or Newt Gingrich is mentally deranged by virtue of their conduct. They are just immoral and despicable. If one is truly an adherent of anarchism, however, the fact that they are immoral and despicable does not mean that they are not deliberately acting to maximize their autonomy, it makes them very moral if the standard of morality is maximizing one’s autonomy – and, by the way, McConnell, being the sly fox that he is, is pretty good at it, which could mean that he is a very adept anarchist.
I once referred to M.S. as a Russian troll. I now consider him, well, "it", as an ineptly programmed Russian bot, so transparent and tediously predictable are the machinations of this virtual creature. The distinguished Harvard philosopher, Hillary Putnam, once wrote an essay entitled, "Brain in a Vat". We have now, in these deplorable times, to cope with Bots in a vat. This is not necessarily a criticism, M.S., it's just that your programming needs a bit of adjusting. Again, all in good rhetorical fun. Do give us a good rhetorical kiss.
Jeffrey, I think it is a mistake to write what you did. Denying that someone else is human can lead to very bad things. Even if it is meant in rhetorical fun or whatever. Anyways, I doubt the Russians or anyone else would spend time trying to influence the people who read the comments section of this blog. The real danger is that they have replaced Professor Wolff himself with their A.I. bot. So far he seems quite human in my limited communications, but then you never really know...
This blog has become petty and ridiculous. Bob, you are fond of telling us that this is *your* blog. Why not take control of it? The strategy of admonishing your unruly commenters like some kind of schoolmarm is not effective.
M.S., sorry. My last Comment went way too far. Fun has its limits. As for Prof.Wolff himself, however, well, bot-wise, the jury is still out---though I too, Jerry, have a sneaking suspicion that he's human.
Jeffrey,
Apology accepted.
MS,
It is clear you are intent on defending your thesis. It is equally clear you dismiss critiques without engaging in the intellectual work necessary to understand them. That you think he is despicable, etc. isn’t the point, and doesn’t refute the substance of the points others have made (Dr Wolff, LFC , and Anonymous and I have made the same point in different ways). Please take the time to read the DSM-5 on narcissism, and the Wikipedia entry on malignant narcissism.
With that, I absent myself from any further involvement on this topic.
Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D. ("Piled Higher and Deeper")
“Much madness is the divinest sense to the discerning eye.” Emily Dickinson
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Leo Tolstoy
Post a Comment