Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Amusement on WC

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    As I said, scurrying in the hole. Der Staudi has excelled himself in creating material for us analysts (or critics as he would prefer to label the group). As
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 27, 2011
      As I said, scurrying in the hole. Der Staudi has excelled himself in creating material for us analysts (or 'critics' as he would prefer to label the group). As part of the stuff he's dished out today, after returning from his holiday presumably, he's responded to my analysis over the last few days of his claim that Steiner was an 'Orientalist' with:

      'Thanks, I hadn't seen that one [an AT posting] (though I did get sent another one yesterday, in
      which Ted imagines himself an Expert On The Orient, of all things)."

      Our mysterious well-wisher has posted him another tidbit from our list - it's nice that they are looking out for him so well! But back to the meat: so, rather than addressing the argument, the best he can do is invent the notion that I'm claiming that I'm an expert. Due to this kind of evasion no argument ever gets or has been addressed by him. I wonder how his students put up with it? It is, in any case, a sad waste of what could have been a significant scholarly talent.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      > This is a fine example of Der Staudi in action. He makes the claim that:
      >
      > "That is, as it happens, exactly what a lot of professors aim for: they want
      > their students to examine everything critically, very much including the things
      > they learn in their classes"
      >
      > This is maybe what he believes as a professor but it certainly ain't so from many students' perspectives. In contra-distinction to his claim, many humanities students either chose their courses to avoid clashing with academics with entrenched opinions that they don't agree with (and so fear being down-marked for) or they decide that, though they don't agree with the word-view or opinions of the academic, and feel they may be penalised for expressing this, they want to learn about the materials and will serve up work that doesn't contest the prevailing view sufficiently to lose marks. Der Staudi, having a strong, intolerant world-view of his own, is probably unaware of how many students have or will avoid his courses.
      >
      > So in a way, his manipulative end piece:
      >
      > "In that sense, academics do sometimes want to
      > corrupt students' assumptions and predilections and unexamined beliefs."
      >
      > is true: he's only likely to get criticism that sits within the bonds of his own world-view, not criticism that undermines it.
      >
      > His repetitive, caustic, references to right-wing critics of left wing academics, such as Beck and Limbaugh, is just his way of trying to politicise an argument that is really about intellectual freedom. To him, anyone undermining his own world-view is ipso facto on the right; this, as I've said, is a standard Marxist politicising of knowledge. If he had ever understood any of the maths he'd studied he would understand there is such a thing as objective knowledge, that is independent of one's opinion about it, and independent of tired old arguments from the left or the right.
      >
      > Here's to Der Staudi discovering a respect for intellectual freedom!
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Der Staudi has chipped in with some sarcasm of his own: presumably he thinks this is a sophisticated example of professorial humour; in the light of most people's understanding of humour he might like to re-think that a little. In a manner that's almost quaint now it's so old, he's again expostulating on his old anxieties that I don't like him for his 'elitist' membership of the academy (perhaps he's forgotten that I have 3 degree level and above qualifications and that I am very likely rather fond of my 3 alma maters - indeed, gasp, I am a member of the Heriot-Watt alumni association!) and because 'professors drove my son to a life of drugs and squalor'. As usual, beyond the general nastiness and lack of compassion it evinces, I care about none of this invented stuff; what I care about, as always, is his dishonesty.
      > >
      > > Honest getting to all,
      > >
      > > T.
      > >
      > > Ted Wrinch
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Diana seems to think that the world see things as she does. It actually doesn't: most people don't believe that sarcasm is a high art-form, and most people would think that someone that responds in a conversation about a topic on their website with an accusation, with no evidence, that the interlocutor is a an 'antisemite, holocaust denier, [and/or] apologist for fascism' has a problem. If they heard in addition that this person makes statements that are untrue, uses polemic and logical fallacies to win arguments and generally doesn't care about the truth of a situation beyond winning the argument that might add to their concern. If they then heard that this person was a scholar and professor responsible for teaching the young they might very well wonder whether he was someone appropriate for the role. However, all this is of no concern to Diana as she's sure that 'the rest of the world sees the situation as she does'. As for 'corrupting the young': most people would definitely regard dishonesty as a corrupting influence, particularly for young people.
      > > >
      > > > Pete K's contribution is more low humour in the form of sarcasm and intellectual snobbery: he still can't get beyond the fact that Der Staudi has a PhD: as he said to me when I was there: 'where's yours, Ted'. My answer to this is the same now as it was then: it's not about the status, Pete, it's about thinking for yourself and following the argument. Pete didn't understand that then and still doesn't; and so he doesn't understand that I'm making an argument about the content of Der Staudi's work, not his status, and this is all one needs to make a valid accusation, whether on WC or at Der Staudi's institution.
      > > >
      > > > (I'm so glad I don't have to have direct conversation with the peanut gallery on WC anymore!)
      > > >
      > > > T.
      > > >
      > > > Ted Wrinch
      > > >
      > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Diana finds us cheap and amusing and worth a sarcastic comment; that's sad: sarcasm is the lowest form of humour and she and her group I think are more to be pitied than laughed at.
      > > > >
      > > > > T.
      > > > >
      > > > > Ted Wrinch
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.