Which commonly studied writers or thinkers do you absolutely hate?

[TripWillis]

I think the point I was aiming for is that Malcolm Gladwell books seem less like books and more like conversation starters for dim yuppies to look intellectual when they're trying to obtain one another's seed.

[TripWillis]

+ the perfect cadence in my head. Allow me to adjust:

 

 

 

 

I'm okay with Gladwell, though. To me the sentiment of hating "anyone in armchair philosophy or pop philosophy" is basically hate for anyone who engages in philosophical pursuits in an accessible way, or outside of the confines of academic structure. Sure, I see why you might not like some of these folks, but hating all of them is your loss.

Thanks for the poetic adjustment.

 

I see what you're saying, but the accessibility factor is not what turns me off of people like Gladwell -- it's the content.

[asleepawake]

Don't grad students do the same thing but with different books?

[TripWillis]

Don't grad students do the same thing but with different books?

Maybe. I dunno. I can't remember ever using The Order of Things in my pickup lines. I have used it in snappy message board banter. But you maybe have a point. 

[asleepawake]

Discipline and Punish works so much better... 

Edited January 18, 2013 by asleepawake

[Troppman]

TripWillis,

Thank you for the reply! I was looking more for specific qualms with theoretical models and ideas. I started typing a long response to your post, but then I realized that I have proofs to correct and a thesis to write! A prescriptive model of the unitary Oedipal subject should be critiqued. I remain unsure what this has to do with Freud's descriptive accounts, however. I still don't understood how Freud's ideas have come to be assumed as evangelizing prescriptions for normalcy--especially regarding issues of gender and sexuality. In the final analysis, “If I am asked ‘am I myself convinced of the truth of these hypotheses?’—I would answer that I am not and do not seek to persuade others to believe in them.’” Good luck to all this application season!

[TripWillis]

TripWillis,

Thank you for the reply! I was looking more for specific qualms with theoretical models and ideas. I started typing a long response to your post, but then I realized that I have proofs to correct and a thesis to write! A prescriptive model of the unitary Oedipal subject should be critiqued. I remain unsure what this has to do with Freud's descriptive accounts, however. I still don't understood how Freud's ideas have come to be assumed as evangelizing prescriptions for normalcy--especially regarding issues of gender and sexuality. In the final analysis, “If I am asked ‘am I myself convinced of the truth of these hypotheses?’—I would answer that I am not and do not seek to persuade others to believe in them.’” Good luck to all this application season!

I think that's the right approach. But then, it's hard for me to see how you can sustain a legacy of discourse off of certain of Freud's ideas when they're so fundamentally flawed. Not saying people can't do it (very obviously, they can! It's thriving!), it just isn't for me.

[TripWillis]

Discipline and Punish works so much better... 

Next time it's bear and leather night at the Eagle, I'll test it out.

[asleepawake]

Next time it's bear and leather night at the Eagle, I'll test it out.

 

I can't up vote this but I WANT TO.

[Datatape]

Next time it's bear and leather night at the Eagle, I'll test it out.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNkGbTuGHd0

[Troppman]

Freud as textual theory, “You must start from the text, start by treating it, as Freud does and as he recommends, as Holy Writ. The author, the scribe, is only a pen-pusher.” Ok, ok, back to work...

[thedeadsea]

For those who mentioned Zizek (or for those who've seen film of him speaking), there are some spot-on moments in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjIT5LPxzDE.

[asleepawake]

For those who mentioned Zizek (or for those who've seen film of him speaking), there are some spot-on moments in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjIT5LPxzDE.

 

[Two Espressos]

Someone please explain the resistance/opposition to Freud/Psychoanalysis

 

I'll be more frank than TripWillis: it's pseudoscience.  I'm of the opinion that empirical, falsifiable research is the only way to really understand physical phenomena.  Psychoanalysis lacks empirical rigor, and I think it's bullshit, to be honest.  I extend that sentiment to any other humanistic endeavor that purports to understand the physical world.  It's not a popular view, but I think it's intellectually honest and the only position reconcilable with scientific modes of thought.

 

Oh, pffft, I forgot:

 

Malcolm Gladwell, Chuck Klosterman, et. al. -- basically anyone in armchair philosophy or pop philosophy or anyone who writes for Grantland. I once had to listen to two breeders on a Bolt Bus yammer on for hours about Blink as part of their mating ritual. Blech.

I think the point I was aiming for is that Malcolm Gladwell books seem less like books and more like conversation starters for dim yuppies to look intellectual when they're trying to obtain one another's seed.

 

I can't speak to Gladwell or Klosterman specifically as I've never read them, but pop-anything books tend to lack substance and provide fodder for pseudo-intellectuals.  They're not useless, of course, as they help introduce ideas to people who wouldn't otherwise have access to them, but they tend to be abused by the general reader who inflates their importance.

 

That's a discursive way of saying I agree with you. 

 

For those who mentioned Zizek (or for those who've seen film of him speaking), there are some spot-on moments in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjIT5LPxzDE.

 

This is hilarious and yes, completely spot-on.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Two Espressos

[thestage]

Don't grad students do the same thing but with different books?

 

 

ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinggggggggggg

 

hi, thread. 

[TripWillis]

I'll be more frank than TripWillis: it's pseudoscience.  I'm of the opinion that empirical, falsifiable research is the only way to really understand physical phenomena.  Psychoanalysis lacks empirical rigor, and I think it's bullshit, to be honest.  I extend that sentiment to any other humanistic endeavor that purports to understand the physical world.  It's not a popular view, but I think it's intellectually honest and the only position reconcilable with scientific modes of thought.

 

 

I can't speak to Gladwell or Klosterman specifically as I've never read them, but pop-anything books tend to lack substance and provide fodder for pseudo-intellectuals.  They're not useless, of course, as they help introduce ideas to people who wouldn't otherwise have access to them, but they tend to be abused by the general reader who inflates their importance.

 

That's a discursive way of saying I agree with you. 

 

 

This is hilarious and yes, completely spot-on.

 

Basically, I'm with Data when it comes to Freud.

 

[NowMoreSerious]

I'll be more frank than TripWillis: it's pseudoscience. I'm of the opinion that empirical, falsifiable research is the only way to really understand physical phenomena. Psychoanalysis lacks empirical rigor, and I think it's bullshit, to be honest. I extend that sentiment to any other humanistic endeavor that purports to understand the physical world. It's not a popular view, but I think it's intellectually honest and the only position reconcilable with scientific modes of thought

But does psychoanalysis have any negative qualities, though? You've nicely defended it here but I'm sure there are flaws in psychoanalysis too.

[Swagato]

I'll be more frank than TripWillis: it's pseudoscience.  I'm of the opinion that empirical, falsifiable research is the only way to really understand physical phenomena.  Psychoanalysis lacks empirical rigor, and I think it's bullshit, to be honest.  I extend that sentiment to any other humanistic endeavor that purports to understand the physical world.  It's not a popular view, but I think it's intellectually honest and the only position reconcilable with scientific modes of thought.

 

 

I can't speak to Gladwell or Klosterman specifically as I've never read them, but pop-anything books tend to lack substance and provide fodder for pseudo-intellectuals.  They're not useless, of course, as they help introduce ideas to people who wouldn't otherwise have access to them, but they tend to be abused by the general reader who inflates their importance.

 

That's a discursive way of saying I agree with you. 

 

 

This is hilarious and yes, completely spot-on.

 

I would like to disagree with the Freud-bashing going on here. Let me clarify.

 

I am, of course, approaching this principally from the perspective of film (and visual) studies. Psychoanalytic theory was a major area within film studies for quite some time, but I do not necessarily subscribe to those ideas. At the same time, film has always been in a privileged position when it comes to representing, enacting, setting up, or manipulating psychological processes on screen. And indeed not just on screen, but even extending this play beyond the screen. Two quick examples can suffice. On the one hand, there is the notion of suture, wherein the spectator's gaze is "sutured" into the film-world, the camera-eye becoming the spectatorial (voyeuristic) eye. On the other hand, there are moments when the so-called fourth wall is broken, either explicitly or implicitly, and the film-world suddenly throws back its (normatively hidden) awareness of the "real" (i.e. spectatorial) world back at the audience.

 

What is interesting about Freud is not so much his explicitly psychological/psychoanalytical work, but rather the ways in which philosophy can reclaim Freud. Consider Akira Lippit's amazing work in Atomic Light (Shadow Optics) where he develops a novel account of the relations between inscription/legibility, the body, and the impact of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on (primarily) the cinema of post-Hiroshima Japan. But also, he is able to develop a concept that he calls "avisuality," or a visuality that attempts to envision an invisible subject (read that again). Freud in this account is enormously useful, particularly in the ways that Lippit is able to wrest away from his psychoanalysis the work of philosophy. That is not to say the two are divorced; of course one is rooted in the other.

 

Alternately, consider the work of Jonathan Lear (Chicago). He has done some of the most important work in showing how Freudian thought, far from being "overthrown" by an often-fetishistic scientism and over-emphasis on empiricism and falsifiability, remains crucial to philosophy today. And not just philosophy, considering the way in which fields like English, Comp Lit, Film Studies, Art History--essentially all of the humanities--have entered into exchanges with various aspects of philosophy.

 

There are many more examples. But in short, while we can certainly criticise many of Freud's more outré hypotheses on the grounds that advances in neuroscience and medical science have shown them to be in error, we can definitely not afford to dismiss Freud in general.

 

I'll close with one last example, one that is central to my own interests and provided one of the "Oh, wow" moments that I think we've all experienced.

 

Freud's Mystic Writing Pad. It's a story, an account, call it what you will, that is proving ever more essential to media studies, media archaeology, history of technology studies, as we transition from 20th century notions of inscription and recording, playback, archives, memory, (inter-)mediality, etc. to a 21st century mindset. I would go so far as to say that anyone working in media studies right now simply cannot afford to be ignorant of the Mystic Writing Pad and all the questions/thoughts it raises. 

 

Freud remains essential. 

[Troppman]

Yup.

[TripWillis]

I would like to disagree with the Freud-bashing going on here. Let me clarify.

 

I am, of course, approaching this principally from the perspective of film (and visual) studies. Psychoanalytic theory was a major area within film studies for quite some time, but I do not necessarily subscribe to those ideas. At the same time, film has always been in a privileged position when it comes to representing, enacting, setting up, or manipulating psychological processes on screen. And indeed not just on screen, but even extending this play beyond the screen. Two quick examples can suffice. On the one hand, there is the notion of suture, wherein the spectator's gaze is "sutured" into the film-world, the camera-eye becoming the spectatorial (voyeuristic) eye. On the other hand, there are moments when the so-called fourth wall is broken, either explicitly or implicitly, and the film-world suddenly throws back its (normatively hidden) awareness of the "real" (i.e. spectatorial) world back at the audience.

 

What is interesting about Freud is not so much his explicitly psychological/psychoanalytical work, but rather the ways in which philosophy can reclaim Freud. Consider Akira Lippit's amazing work in Atomic Light (Shadow Optics) where he develops a novel account of the relations between inscription/legibility, the body, and the impact of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on (primarily) the cinema of post-Hiroshima Japan. But also, he is able to develop a concept that he calls "avisuality," or a visuality that attempts to envision an invisible subject (read that again). Freud in this account is enormously useful, particularly in the ways that Lippit is able to wrest away from his psychoanalysis the work of philosophy. That is not to say the two are divorced; of course one is rooted in the other.

 

Alternately, consider the work of Jonathan Lear (Chicago). He has done some of the most important work in showing how Freudian thought, far from being "overthrown" by an often-fetishistic scientism and over-emphasis on empiricism and falsifiability, remains crucial to philosophy today. And not just philosophy, considering the way in which fields like English, Comp Lit, Film Studies, Art History--essentially all of the humanities--have entered into exchanges with various aspects of philosophy.

 

There are many more examples. But in short, while we can certainly criticise many of Freud's more outré hypotheses on the grounds that advances in neuroscience and medical science have shown them to be in error, we can definitely not afford to dismiss Freud in general.

 

I'll close with one last example, one that is central to my own interests and provided one of the "Oh, wow" moments that I think we've all experienced.

 

Freud's Mystic Writing Pad. It's a story, an account, call it what you will, that is proving ever more essential to media studies, media archaeology, history of technology studies, as we transition from 20th century notions of inscription and recording, playback, archives, memory, (inter-)mediality, etc. to a 21st century mindset. I would go so far as to say that anyone working in media studies right now simply cannot afford to be ignorant of the Mystic Writing Pad and all the questions/thoughts it raises. 

 

Freud remains essential. 

 

I am very into this post. This is sort of what I was getting at when I said Freud/Psycho. was more something I can't get motivated to explore than something I was just writing off completely. I think I have good reasons for my aversion to it, but I can definitely see what people like.

[Two Espressos]

I would like to disagree with the Freud-bashing going on here. Let me clarify.

 

I am, of course, approaching this principally from the perspective of film (and visual) studies. Psychoanalytic theory was a major area within film studies for quite some time, but I do not necessarily subscribe to those ideas. At the same time, film has always been in a privileged position when it comes to representing, enacting, setting up, or manipulating psychological processes on screen. And indeed not just on screen, but even extending this play beyond the screen. Two quick examples can suffice. On the one hand, there is the notion of suture, wherein the spectator's gaze is "sutured" into the film-world, the camera-eye becoming the spectatorial (voyeuristic) eye. On the other hand, there are moments when the so-called fourth wall is broken, either explicitly or implicitly, and the film-world suddenly throws back its (normatively hidden) awareness of the "real" (i.e. spectatorial) world back at the audience.

 

What is interesting about Freud is not so much his explicitly psychological/psychoanalytical work, but rather the ways in which philosophy can reclaim Freud. Consider Akira Lippit's amazing work in Atomic Light (Shadow Optics) where he develops a novel account of the relations between inscription/legibility, the body, and the impact of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on (primarily) the cinema of post-Hiroshima Japan. But also, he is able to develop a concept that he calls "avisuality," or a visuality that attempts to envision an invisible subject (read that again). Freud in this account is enormously useful, particularly in the ways that Lippit is able to wrest away from his psychoanalysis the work of philosophy. That is not to say the two are divorced; of course one is rooted in the other.

 

Alternately, consider the work of Jonathan Lear (Chicago). He has done some of the most important work in showing how Freudian thought, far from being "overthrown" by an often-fetishistic scientism and over-emphasis on empiricism and falsifiability, remains crucial to philosophy today. And not just philosophy, considering the way in which fields like English, Comp Lit, Film Studies, Art History--essentially all of the humanities--have entered into exchanges with various aspects of philosophy.

 

There are many more examples. But in short, while we can certainly criticise many of Freud's more outré hypotheses on the grounds that advances in neuroscience and medical science have shown them to be in error, we can definitely not afford to dismiss Freud in general.

 

Freud remains essential. 

 

Let me preface this by saying that 1) I certainly think Freud is worth reading for historical purposes and 2) that I'm not going to comment on the content of the specific books you've mentioned or the media studies angle, as I'm ignorant of those things.

 

We all seem to agree that Freudian psychoanalysis fails miserably as a methodology in human psychology, and this being the case, I think we need to contend with a few different issues:

 

1: Why bother trying to resuscitate bunk science and apply amenable bits and pieces of it as a lens for analyzing film, literary texts, etc. anyway?  Wouldn't the application of real empirical psychological studies to film, literary texts, etc. be much more fruitful and interesting?

 

2: If Freud's ideas hold no water with what we've come to know about the human body and mind, what makes those ideas--or rather, extracted bits and pieces of those ideas, as you state above-- somehow okay for humanistic analysis?  Can we even call the application of ideas from bunk science, even if transformed by philosophical analysis to somehow "reclaim" Freud, knowledge?

 

3: The above point to an even broader issue: how is it epistemologically tenable to take ideas from a completely different field and somehow apply those ideas to a critical object?

 

The third problem is a severe one, as nearly all humanistic fields do this.  It's taken to be a truism that such a thing is possible and produces what one could legitimately classify as knowledge.  Doing so may be epistemologically possible, but I've never seen a solid defense of it.

 

As far as what you've said about scientism, empiricism, and falsifiability, is this directed towards me?  I certainly think that empiricism and science is by far the best and perhaps only way to learn about the physical world, but I'm not scientistic in the technical sense of the term.  If I were, I wouldn't be interested in pursuing a Ph.D. in the humanities. 

 

I stand by my denigration of Freud (and Lacan, and Zizek, and others whose work is fundamentally predicated on his ideas).  This has been a rambling, possibly incoherent post, but I think the following paraphrase of a real-life comment I once heard is apt: "Freud has been debunked by and is no longer important for psychologists, but he's great for literary studies!"

 

Am I the only person who sees a problem with using bad, dated science in humanistic work?  No wonder we're never taken seriously.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Two Espressos

[practical cat]

I like Freud because I am interested in the history of ideas, especially the ways of thinking about the individual/self (in relation to society and others). He was an influential thinker in a subject I am interested in during a period I am interested in.

But as a methodology, I'm with two espressos. (And I intersect with media studies in very big/real ways.)

[bluecheese]

cixous kristeva irigaray!!!!!

[Two Espressos]

In general, I think literary studies needs to clean house.  I've brought up these concerns in another thread: I think that there is a set of severe epistemological problems underlying literary knowledge that often goes unacknowledged.  In the rare case that I am fortunate enough to begin a Ph.D. in English next fall, I'd like to believe that one day I could help start the house cleaning.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Two Espressos

[bluecheese]

You're saying that we should get rid of all strait white dudes from privileged backgrounds? I agree. Let the housekeeping commence.

 

[Just being snarky. That said, I think the existence of psychoanalytic discourse is one of the smallest problems the academy has.]

Edited January 20, 2013 by bluecheese