A thing I’ve noticed. There’s a lot of talking past each other here (in this hotly contested discussion, I mean, not on this blog). There’s a lot of mixing up of slogans and political commitments with attempts to disambiguate words and problematize concepts. The two don’t go well together. I have political commitments, but I also like to try to disambiguate words and problematize concepts.
So, if only “abbeycadabra” had thought to make their question to me a matter of political commitments, I could have answered it, probably the way they were looking for. But they didn’t. And because they didn’t, they pretty thoroughly fucked up my life for the past couple of weeks.
I squandered much too much time today answering endless repetitive pointless questions from two men on Facebook who were making the same mistake.
They were (it became more and more clear) talking about commitments, but they talked about them in the language of ontology and epistemology. If they had just talked about them in the language of rights or morality or politics, I could have answered in a sentence and all that time would have been saved.
I’ve long defended the claim that skeptics don’t have to banish all commitments as the enemy of skepticism. People with no moral commitments are…not pleasant people, as you may have noticed. But one does have to know the difference.
Slogans have their uses, but the uses are pretty limited. Usually when I’m trying to think about something, slogans are not going to be relevant. (Cf Josh’s post on “intent is not magic” yesterday.) Spending hours trying to force me to utter a particular slogan is just silly. It doesn’t tell you anything. Ask me instead if I share your commitment; unless you’re an asshole with asshole commitments, the answer will be yes.
Very well said!
It blows my mind that any of this is yet ambiguous. Weeks!
There you go again, discussing abstract intellectual concepts (aka “word salad”) when you’ve never done that sort of thing before. As if that sort of thing mattered!
/S
The very word “problematize” (and likewise “problematic”) needs disambiguation. I always get suspicious that something is being elided when I see it used without further explanation.
I’m a little allergic to that word myself, but it was what I meant in this case, so…oh well, I used it.
I found it very clear, what you meant — I just think it’s more commonly left to hang there as a sort of mental shortcut to condemnation… I must re-read Tavris. I’ve been taking a break from blog-reading the last few weeks and I think I might need another go-around with Mistakes Were Made in order to stop myself from blowing a gasket if I try to catch up, based on a skim earlier today. I think I want Brony’s reading list, too.
This is probably the best place to link to my two-part post:
James Baldwin’s existentialist critique of gender, misogyny, and homophobia and its value today, Part 1
James Baldwin’s existentialist critique of gender, misogyny, and homophobia and its value today, Part 2
(Especially because the Salon article I mention at the beginning of part 2 notes that “although he is worthy of the memes now circulating the Internet with his compelling face above a snatch of his wise words—worthy, too, of being held up as a possible exemplar for modern writers like Ta-Nehisi Coates—Baldwin cannot be reduced to a meme. No American of the 20th century resisted slogans more strenuously than this carefully nuanced thinker,* and understanding him in light of his historical moment makes him an even more powerful necessary beacon for ours.”)
* not sure if this is true, but the general point stands
And I should add that just as existential freedom isn’t the same thing as social-political-economic freedom, existential courage isn’t the same thing as social courage. Regardless of existential authenticity, transitioning is immensely courageous.
Too bad Abbey can’t be here to respond to this.
Who is Abbey?
I think SallyStrange means abbeycadabra.
But we’re supposed to use exact names. I don’t know what Sally Strange meant unless Sally Strange tells me.