[Fwd: Re: pat is quite displeased...]

[Pat Gehrke <papacat@sierra.net>]

Pat Gehrke wrote:
> 
> I resent being labeled a prophet and also resent being labeled postmodern.
> These two tags have been stuck on me, the latter quite frequently. I would
> appreciate those who read this refraining from these ludicrous labels. Using
> either to describe me is indicative of a very passing relationship with me
> (often surrounding my affirmative advocacy during my debate career).
> Matt Siemens, Gina Ercolini, Norah Dunbar, and some of the other members on
> the CSU Chico squad are probably the few people on this list remotely
> qualified to make such a claim (and have explicitly stated their disagreement
> with this label).
> 
> Glen Strickland wrote:
> > I'll mark those profound words down and remember them the next time I hear
> > someone including you Matt whine about not having access to lexis-Nexis.
> 
> The lack of access to valuable debate resources such as lexis and the
> equivocation of such as measures of the debatability of a wording are not
> analogous. As I noted in the original post, for some areas of literature,
> Lx/Nx is very valuable. For others it is not. Schools of philosophy are poorly
> represented on the system, found usually in greatest abundance in the law
> journals, which make a very limited use (both in scope and application) of the
> literature.
> 
> > I was not using lexis as a measurement for debateable arguments only as an
> > illustration of the inaccessible nature of the kind of philosophical bs
> > contained in a couple of topics on the ballot. I doubt very much that many
> > on the circuit want to be stuck debating such bulls___ arguments as
> > post-modernism, etc.
> 
> First, I would appreciate Dr. Strickland refraining from labeling arguments
> "bulls____." If you dislike, or find little merit, in arguments, I respect
> that and encourage you to express it intelligently. Postmodernism is, as I am
> certain you are fully aware, one of the strongest schools of philosophy in
> measure of both numbers and breadth. Combined with related fields such as
> critical modernism (Habermas & co.) who are primarily responses to the
> postmodern and late existential movements, they have comprised a great body of
> literature in Anthropology (Levi-Strauss), Communication (Habermas),
> Literature (Derrida), Ecology (Zimmerman), Law (Schlag), Psychology (Lacan)
> and an almost innumerable number of other arbitrary academic divisions.
> Writers like Heidegger, Nietzsche, Foucault, Lyotard, Jameson, Vattimo,
> Bauman, Baudrillard, Eco, Jencks, Rorty, add to the richness of this
> literature. Maybe we remember Zarefsky's speech at SCA a few years ago which
> was reprinted in Vital Speeches? All this literature is dismissed as not
> worthy of any attention of the debate community by Dr. Strickland's label of
> "bs."
> 
> Additionally, postmodernism is the nexus point of some of the hottest debates
> in law, literature, communication, ethics, etc. Seems like maybe some in
> debate would catch on to that, as they did to the normativity argument, or
> ecofeminism, or global warming, or overpopulation, all of which were
> considered "bs" arguments when first introduced.
> 
> (NOTE: I DISAGREE WITH MANY AUTHORS LABELED POSTMODERN (BOTH DECO AND CONSTR).
> I FIND THEIR WORK INTERESTING, BUT IT IS NOT MY PRIMARY INTEREST. I PREFER
> EXISTENTIAL PHILOSOPHY TO POSTMODERN THOUGHT, AND CONSIDER SOME OF THE FORMER
> TO REFUTE SECTIONS OF THE LATTER.)
> 
> Further, your linking of the term "philosophical" with bs may suggest a bias
> against philosophy as a field which benefits from and contributes to
> argumentation. Such is a blatant mischaracterization. Of all the fields
> recognized in academia, philosophy has both embraced and enriched the practice
> of argumentation. Academics in communication fields rarely display the
> vigorous and enriched arguments as have bounced between Rawls and Habermas
> over the last few years, or between Norris and some of the postmodernists.
> Philosophy is built on the practice of argumentation.
> 
> Now, as to the literature being inaccessible, this is only the case if one
> suffers from one of three personal problems:
> 1. Being so attached to the lexis terminal they forgot what a call number is.
> or
> 2. Being so afraid to read something difficult they decided to abandon any
> thinker which is not writing at an eighth grade level.
> or
> 3. Having become so ego-involved as to be unwilling to admit the difficulty in
> reading or understanding certain thinkers and hence classifying their work as
> "bs".
> 
> Now, I know that Dr. Strickland does not fall into these three particular
> categories, so I am particularly distressed by his off-hand and shallow
> rejection of debating philosophical "bs." Some in the debate community may
> fear this literature, or may not find it in their primary interests. Some may
> just be so unfamiliar with it that they reject it strategically. Some may have
> teachers and coaches who are unwilling to teach the unconventional. BUT IT
> WILL BE THERE, AND WE WILL ALL LISTEN TO IT.
> 
> The resolutions which are less conventional may have less appeal to some
> debaters and coaches, such as Dr. Strickland, but such hardly makes them "bs"
> or undeserving of consideration.
> 
> After all, some may feel that the discussion of policies and regulations
> without a focus on their philosophical unbderpinnings is worthless "bs" which
> deludes us into thinking we can fix a corrupt and rotting society with
> institutional patches. Hard call. I guess that depends on where you're
> sitting.
> 
> In an unhappy voice,
> 
> Pat Gehrke
> CSU Chico

---

• Prev by Date: Re: pat G. and the deep eco-ist
• Next by Date: re:topic process survey
• Prev by thread: New Topic Papers?
• Next by thread: re:topic process survey
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page