I have been reading ‘Several short sentences about writing' by Verlyn Klinkenborg this week. It was recommended to me by my Copenhagen Business School colleague, Professor Len Seabrooke. The book is easily the most radical I have read on writing. For that reason alone I recommend it, presuming you are open minded about how English should be written.
More interesting is its epistemology. This paragraph from page 38 explores that. I quote it as it is written in the book:
The central fact of your education is this:
You've been taught to believe that what you discover by thinking.
By examining your own thoughts and perceptions,
Is unimportant and unauthorised.
As a result, you fear thinking,
And you don't believe your thoughts are interesting,
Because you haven't learned to be interested in them.
This is what most people, and most especially most academics and their students, should know. But they don't. And the result is chronically poor writing that reflects chronically poor thinking.
Read the book, I say.
That was a short sentence.
Written as a short review, of an important book.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Steady on Richard, that’s almost philosophy – won’t they take your accountancy qualifications off you if you do too much of that?
I think they would, if they could
Lovely stuff. My fifteen year old GCSE ridden daughter will love this.
Thanks.
It is such a good read. But you have to be willing to be taken by surprise. And then think.
Advice noted.
I invigilated an English Literature exam in the summer. It only seemed to test an understanding of the techniques -‘how does the author show XYZ?’
The real value of literature is exposure to big ideas. I did Saint Joan by Shaw for O level. I learnt from that that good people can do bad things for what they thought was good reasons i.e. suppressing heresy. I did note they were studying Animal Farm, which is encouraging.
Cogito ergo sum.
No
Descartes got that very wrong, indeed
He has a lot of apologising to do
Perhaps I should explain
Descartes separated thinking from experience and made it personal
Thinking has to be based in observation, experience and attachment
To be fair, Richard, Descartes’s emphasis in his famous apothegm is really on the “sum”, not the “cogito”, as he was seeking to establish a proof for being, or if not a proof, then a validation, and he came to the conclusion that the fact that he was thinking proved his being.
Of course, that really doesn’t actually answer the question posed in Lope de Vega’s play “La Vida es Sueño” = life is a dream/illusion, especially as there are some versions of Quantum Mechanics that hold that the whole cosmos is actually a “flat (??)” hologram!
Richard, in mitigation of the charge against Descartes, I would argue he was more concerned with the “sum” part of his famous apothegm than the “cogito” part, as he sought for something that could be trusted. The “cogito” was certainly important, but its real force was to validate the “sum” part = “being”.
Of course, Descartes’s assertion offers no answer to Lope de Vega’s counter assertion that “La Vida es Sueño” = life is a dream/illusion, which might seem more valid, given that there are quantum theorists who posit that the whole cosmos is a giant (possibly flat!!??) hologram.
I do not dispute he was seeking an irreducible meaning
But he also created the mind / body divide as a result, and that has had an enormous cost
And yes, I know all the arguments for the ‘scientific method’
Huh? The cogito is expressly, explicitly an answer – and a good one – to such questions as Lope de Vega’s. And it is not “personal” (individual) – that is a misinterpretation (like “Cartesian Dualism”) that Descartes explicitly and unequivocally disavows.
Rules of (directing the?) Thumb:
1) If there is a modern philosophical consensus about some Great Philosopher of the Past saying something – which the herd of independent and thoroughly modern minds unanimously declares dead and false . . . Then it is a good bet that Great Philosopher did actually hold that position, and that it is Absolutely True, and a Great Advance in Thought, something you have to be crazy to deny, once you understand it.
2) If there is a modern debate about the truth of Great Philosopher’s dictum, with modern defenders and critics, then Great Philosopher probably said something about the matter, but the exact opposite of what the defenders and critics agree he said – so he sides with “critics of Great Philosopher”, not defenders.
Maybe
But does it matter?
What matters is the use made of the idea
Arguing the attribution does not matter if the harm is done anyway
I had what I thought was a good comment, but lost track after 5000 words.
It was kind of a joke. I must have spent a lot of my life in Philosophy classes discussing Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Wiigenstein and Kant and I’m no clearer about the seat of human consciousness than when I started out. The only consolation is that no one else has much of an idea either. Emergent properties of wet chemistry and a lot of quantum tunnelling, Maybe?
Maybe….
@Rod White.
re Wittgenstein I recommend reading ‘The Jew of Linz’ by Kimberley Cornish.
Having read that I came to the conclusion that I don’t understand anything Wittgenstein ever wrote because he didn’t intend me to. Nor anybody else for that matter. By being sufficiently opaque no one was able to effectively challenge his propositions.
This ensured he had a secure post at Cambridge Uni which ensured that he was comfortably ensconced where he needed to be to get on with what he regarded as his important work.
It’s an interesting theory. Makes considerably more sense to me than his ‘philosophical’ utterances do.
Richard, I wholeheartedly agree re the destructive mind/body dualism that resulted from what Descartes established.
Incidentally, sorry about the double, rejigged post: something went wrong with the software somewhere – don’t know where – to the effect that my list seemed not to have been accepted, on either attempt, with no display of the post, under the words “Your post is awaiting moderation”, or words to that effect.
And now, miraculously, both attempts were not only accepted, but have been moderated. Thank you
It happens….
Nietzsche apologised to a whipped donkey for Descartes. In really radical doubt thoughts in no way intend a thinker. In philosophy nothing grounds, even scientific method. I’d suggest the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy as a brilliant free source. If you can stand the pain, try such searches as “structuralism in physics” and “repugnant conclusion” – the latter is on population ethics and you can gather from it that much argument proceeds by excluding what counts – in this case what morality is directed from the science telling us the deep mire we are in already through over-population and over-consumption of the wrong lifestyle – in my view distraction into ethics based in superstition and its shadow is unethical and intellectually immoral. Much as in the state of audit.
Economics’ and common sense views on empiricism do not stand philosophical tests on empirical adequacy, those of psychological reception of argument or how we deem what is to count as real in science. If it’s real that to “raise consumption” to US standards for all leads us to need 5 planets for the resources and pollution venting needed, then groaf-oaf politics and handmaiden economics are immoral fairy tales. Science would look to model this real in and find new accounting devices for control of the choice pathways that work to produce a very different kind of planet-benevolent growth. A big block to this is an idiot view of science as value-free and objective. This was just something we had to claim in the war with superstition – now something and only part of the reasons we can’t mainstream green policies and present them without people fearing this will lead to poverty and less choice in trinkets. Even in population ethics philosophy (it makes me angry) we can find a form of imagination suggesting looking at the dire future might be better done by thinking of this in terms of the future people in the mess, not through our current ideas of repugnance. Crap as this is for mega-overpopulation, we could be asking more on how a green future might be enjoyed more than current lives. Something remains from contact with philosophy, even after it has taught us no theories actually ground and argument itself never does. Bangladesh has a lifestyle that would not maim or destroy the planet if we all adopted it, so even though we might not want that, we can’t deny we could make the planet sustainable There’s an empirical example. Philosophy is no good if you crave the philosophers’ stone.
Thank you
Sounds like a lot of Wittgenstein – about thinking I mean, i.e. that we don’t.
In the late 80′ when I was teaching on Thatcher’s unthought-through Top Management Programme Jim Sillars, the Scottish MP, remarked to me of the Scottish MPs that “there’s not a brain between them” and went on to expand on how the earlier generations had investigated things, written books, done stuff that required intellectual application (sounds a bit like Chris Mullin). This lot, said Jim, just don’t think.
Max Weber decried the tendency to understand stuff at the level of description, but not at the level of meaning. I am sure, as a result of his work on bureaucracy, he was alluding to ambitious politicians and their compliant civil servants. Hey presto, we have HS2.
The author emphasises the importance of observation
His argument is to nit look for the meaning 8n the words per se but in their context
That makes reading as active a process as writing
He argues a good writer has to be a good reader.
A shortage of good readers is a problem in that case.
Should we not also consider the lack of critical reading skills? Modern culture with its emphasis on speed of communication seems to have robbed many of the facility to analyse words to determine whether their value is true or counterfeit. How many times will people read an adjective like ‘better’ or ‘good’ and accept it at face value without noting that it renders the statement opinion not fact? How many go on to examine its context?
Bertrand Russell once wrote ““Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked” (from The Problems of Philosophy.)
He was right
The Earth is round. The sun doesn’t circle the earth. Eclipses are not caused by cosmic dragons. Blood scarifices don’t appease non existent gods. You can’t take it with you… etc.
You make Russell’s point (he used ‘a table’ as a demonstration). Take nothing for granted.
Words must fit their purpose.
The world is not round it’s an ellipsoid. Round is sufficient for generalities but not for designing a GPS system.
There was a time when fact stated the sun orbited a flat earth. Observation proved it.
There was a time when witches were fact (1500s). The last execution took place as The Enlightenment heralded in an era of questioning of received wisdom (1785). Coincidence? Issac Newton’s Law of Gravity is a good approximation but erroneous when applied universally. As an aside Issac Newton held an unhealthy interest in the occult. Whilst it was only 230 years before Newton’s error was corrected the last of the witchcraft laws were not repealed until the 1950’s.
You might accuse me of pedantry but when it comes to works of non-fiction I’ll live with that.
Questioning is what moves us forward.
Bill Lawrence says:
“Words must fit their purpose.
The world is not round it’s an ellipsoid.”
Now you’ve upset my entire worldview, Bill. They told me the Earth was an oblate spheroid.
Back to the drawing board.
You can’t trust anything they tell you.
And this makes my brain hurt. https://www.britannica.com/science/geoid/media/229667/203805 🙂
Thanks Bill, I stand corrected in my logical fallacy
Hindsight is wonderful thing – wish we were born with it!
It is not just about reading etc. Its about phenomenology. What is that, where, who, and why. We do not observe enough.
I remember in the 1950’s my dad, an avid sea fisherman, remarked to me that at low Spring tide you could now see the nylon tangled fishing line in the rock crevices. That never happened before, he observed, with the cord line we used to use before, because it rotted.
Lindbergh once remarked to Henry Ford, just after he (Lindbergh) has started Pan Am, that he was not sure taking tourists to all these exotic places was a good thing for the places.
This kind of intuition, unease, is lacking today.
Thank you, especially for that quote from the book. It explains a lot. It had never occurred to me that anyone thought like that, yet (according to that quote) it is normal. Perhaps that explains mysteries like the Brexit vote, the election of Trump and how anyone other than the very rich ever vote Tory.
I haven’t studied much ‘philosophy’, not in any formal sense.
I was quite ‘taken’, a very long time ago, by the title of a book my father had probably read. By Sue Stebbings, entitled ‘Thinking to some purpose’.
It’s such a good title I’ve never bothered to read it in case it peaks there and goes downhill once opened.
For the benefit of anyone wishing to delve further into the dubious delights of philosophy I offer this for your edification.
Advisory – the following lyrics contain explicit language:
From Monty Python’s “Live at the Hollywood Bowl”
Transcribed by John Daley jdaley@picasso.ocis.temple.edu
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya ’bout the turning of the wrist,
Socrates himself was permanently pissed…
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, with half a pint of shandy was
particularly ill,
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day,
Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, “I drink therefore I am.”
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he’s pissed.
Read more: Monty Python – Immanuel Kant Lyrics | MetroLyrics
One of their best, I think
Ah, yes. That reminds me I shall be giving up alcohol for Advent. Actually looking forward to it.