You’re making a mistake when you take talk of this sort at face value. This is ideological speech, not scientific or technical speech. It doesn’t even try to present a rational argument based on facts and logic, and it doesn’t strive for an accurate view of reality—its purpose is not to do anything like that, no more than, say, a love poem has any such goals.
The true meaning of ideological language can be directly expressed only in the language of power. Like any other ideologue, your lecturer has an idea of what the social order and the relations of power should be like, and what measures should be taken to change the present system in this direction. His ideological language is meant to provide a rallying cry for his co-ideologues in order to sort out who is for and who against him, and to strengthen the passion and resolve within his own ranks. Agreeing or disagreeing with it will in practice signal only your ideological allegiance, and nothing at all about your intellectual standards.
If you want to reply to this ideological drivel, then in all likelihood, this is the only thing that your reply can communicate. It is impossible for you to innocently address only its literal meaning, keeping your hands clean from any implied considerations of power—both the broader social power relations with which the lecturer’s ideology is concerned, and the lecturer’s own power in his position as an official institutional ideologist. Your reply will be immediately understood as a challenge and attack in terms of power, as a threat that must be met, not as an interesting contribution to truth-seeking. In this sense, challenging ideological language with logic is similar to what would happen if you tried to defend yourself on a show trial.
Whether you want to pick this battle is your call, but be aware that these are the terms in which it is likely to be fought.
Whatever purpose such texts are supposed to serve according to whatever theory, they still are crazy talk, incorrect reasoning. It might be rational to produce irrational reasoning on occasion, but that doesn’t change the irrational character of that reasoning.
Not every human verbal expression falls under the category of “reasoning,” under any sensible definition of the term. Nor is it rational in any sense to treat every utterance as such; information conveyed beyond the literal meaning of words is a regular feature of human communication, and often its relevance completely overshadows that of the literal meaning. (If anything, there is such a thing as pragmatics, though I’d say ideological language presents an additional level of distance from the literal meaning than just everyday pragmatics.)
Moreover, the poster’s question was whether it’s sensible to actively challenge these assertions in the given circumstances, and I think my answer addresses that specific issue, whether or not you agree with it.
It might not be the most relevant question whether the text is crazy, but it still is, even if it’s for some impossible reason a very useful and pragmatic thing to utter. Arguing about definitions of “reasoning” isn’t relevant, just as arguing about definitions of “rational” doesn’t advance understanding of decision theory.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you really saying that a situation where invalid reasoning is a useful thing to utter falls under the category of “impossible”? (By the way, I meant “pragmatics” in the technical sense of the term.)
But more importantly: if you wish to focus on the literal meaning of these words, go ahead; certainly nobody who has the relevant knowledge can honestly disagree that the reasoning is completely invalid. Yet in this case, the intended non-literal ideological meaning expressed by these words is far more important than their literal meaning, and therefore you cannot expect to establish a discourse with the person who uttered them in terms of their literal meaning. These words were simply not intended to convey a logically and factually valid argument in the first place, no more than a casual acquaintance asking “How are you?” is interested in hearing an honest report about your ongoing life concerns.
The students should insist of firing this fount of deep wisdom to preserve their sanity.
That is true, under two critical assumptions: that the students’ primary goal in this situation is acquiring factually accurate knowledge about reality, and that the events that would be put into motion by placing such a request in practice would further their aims. Considering the reality of the contemporary Western university systems and their broader role in society—especially their parts that deal with topics of this sort—both assumptions are questionable at best.
“Sanity” is also not a good choice of word here. It normally refers to having a view of the world that is not so inaccurate that it would damage one’s instrumental goals (either by entailing self-destructive action or by strong negative signaling). In contrast, certain types of inaccurate beliefs that have no such negative instrumental consequences can have highly beneficial status- and affiliation-signaling consequences, so it can be in one’s interest to acquire them. Assuming that the beliefs promoted by the lecturer in question are in the latter category, I’m not sure if I would characterize resistance to his propaganda as “preserving one’s sanity.”
Not every human verbal expression falls under the category of “reasoning,” under any sensible definition of the term.
I can understand the text fragment cited in the post as reasoning, and according to this understanding, it’s erroneous reasoning. You are arguing about definitions of “reasoning” now, which isn’t at all relevant to my point.
That depends on your own position from which you’re answering. If you’re a student in class, there isn’t really much you can do: after all, you’re just an individual faced with an institutionally backed career ideologist. Whatever happens, next year you’ll be gone, and he’ll have another generation to propagandize.
However, there are all sorts of incredibly fun ways to be subversive. A rich source of inspiration could be the writings of people from the former Soviet Bloc who described their own experiences with the obligatory Marxism lessons at school and work. Especially considering that the risks of disobedience are much smaller here, so the creative opportunities are much greater too!
If SeventhNadir is really interested in sticking it to the man instead of nodding with a poker face, I’d recommend this latter course of action rather than open disobedience, which is unlikely to do any good.
You’re making a mistake when you take talk of this sort at face value. This is ideological speech, not scientific or technical speech. It doesn’t even try to present a rational argument based on facts and logic, and it doesn’t strive for an accurate view of reality—its purpose is not to do anything like that, no more than, say, a love poem has any such goals.
The true meaning of ideological language can be directly expressed only in the language of power. Like any other ideologue, your lecturer has an idea of what the social order and the relations of power should be like, and what measures should be taken to change the present system in this direction. His ideological language is meant to provide a rallying cry for his co-ideologues in order to sort out who is for and who against him, and to strengthen the passion and resolve within his own ranks. Agreeing or disagreeing with it will in practice signal only your ideological allegiance, and nothing at all about your intellectual standards.
If you want to reply to this ideological drivel, then in all likelihood, this is the only thing that your reply can communicate. It is impossible for you to innocently address only its literal meaning, keeping your hands clean from any implied considerations of power—both the broader social power relations with which the lecturer’s ideology is concerned, and the lecturer’s own power in his position as an official institutional ideologist. Your reply will be immediately understood as a challenge and attack in terms of power, as a threat that must be met, not as an interesting contribution to truth-seeking. In this sense, challenging ideological language with logic is similar to what would happen if you tried to defend yourself on a show trial.
Whether you want to pick this battle is your call, but be aware that these are the terms in which it is likely to be fought.
Whatever purpose such texts are supposed to serve according to whatever theory, they still are crazy talk, incorrect reasoning. It might be rational to produce irrational reasoning on occasion, but that doesn’t change the irrational character of that reasoning.
Not every human verbal expression falls under the category of “reasoning,” under any sensible definition of the term. Nor is it rational in any sense to treat every utterance as such; information conveyed beyond the literal meaning of words is a regular feature of human communication, and often its relevance completely overshadows that of the literal meaning. (If anything, there is such a thing as pragmatics, though I’d say ideological language presents an additional level of distance from the literal meaning than just everyday pragmatics.)
Moreover, the poster’s question was whether it’s sensible to actively challenge these assertions in the given circumstances, and I think my answer addresses that specific issue, whether or not you agree with it.
It might not be the most relevant question whether the text is crazy, but it still is, even if it’s for some impossible reason a very useful and pragmatic thing to utter. Arguing about definitions of “reasoning” isn’t relevant, just as arguing about definitions of “rational” doesn’t advance understanding of decision theory.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you really saying that a situation where invalid reasoning is a useful thing to utter falls under the category of “impossible”? (By the way, I meant “pragmatics” in the technical sense of the term.)
But more importantly: if you wish to focus on the literal meaning of these words, go ahead; certainly nobody who has the relevant knowledge can honestly disagree that the reasoning is completely invalid. Yet in this case, the intended non-literal ideological meaning expressed by these words is far more important than their literal meaning, and therefore you cannot expect to establish a discourse with the person who uttered them in terms of their literal meaning. These words were simply not intended to convey a logically and factually valid argument in the first place, no more than a casual acquaintance asking “How are you?” is interested in hearing an honest report about your ongoing life concerns.
I don’t believe this particular case is one.
Important to whom? The students should insist of firing this fount of deep wisdom to preserve their sanity.
Vladimir_Nesov:
That is true, under two critical assumptions: that the students’ primary goal in this situation is acquiring factually accurate knowledge about reality, and that the events that would be put into motion by placing such a request in practice would further their aims. Considering the reality of the contemporary Western university systems and their broader role in society—especially their parts that deal with topics of this sort—both assumptions are questionable at best.
“Sanity” is also not a good choice of word here. It normally refers to having a view of the world that is not so inaccurate that it would damage one’s instrumental goals (either by entailing self-destructive action or by strong negative signaling). In contrast, certain types of inaccurate beliefs that have no such negative instrumental consequences can have highly beneficial status- and affiliation-signaling consequences, so it can be in one’s interest to acquire them. Assuming that the beliefs promoted by the lecturer in question are in the latter category, I’m not sure if I would characterize resistance to his propaganda as “preserving one’s sanity.”
I can understand the text fragment cited in the post as reasoning, and according to this understanding, it’s erroneous reasoning. You are arguing about definitions of “reasoning” now, which isn’t at all relevant to my point.
Do you know of any good language of power-based answers to that sort of thing?
I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “good” in this context. What precise goal should be achieved by these answers?
Adjusting the power balance to something I’d approve of,.
That depends on your own position from which you’re answering. If you’re a student in class, there isn’t really much you can do: after all, you’re just an individual faced with an institutionally backed career ideologist. Whatever happens, next year you’ll be gone, and he’ll have another generation to propagandize.
However, there are all sorts of incredibly fun ways to be subversive. A rich source of inspiration could be the writings of people from the former Soviet Bloc who described their own experiences with the obligatory Marxism lessons at school and work. Especially considering that the risks of disobedience are much smaller here, so the creative opportunities are much greater too!
If SeventhNadir is really interested in sticking it to the man instead of nodding with a poker face, I’d recommend this latter course of action rather than open disobedience, which is unlikely to do any good.