4 ms·

Ugh, this is horribly written and even worse when you figure out what she's saying. It's not until the eighth paragraph that we get to find out what the author

Ugh, this is horribly written and even worse when you figure out what she's saying. It's not until the eighth paragraph that we get to find out what the author is actually talking about when she uses the word "essay", and at that point we realize she's talking about philosophical fluff pieces: "When I say “essay,” I mean short nonfiction prose with a meditative subject at its center and a tendency away from certitude." She follows by prescribing that her definition of the word is the correct one, despite openly admitting that hers is not the common definition of the word: "Much of the writing encountered today that is labeled as “essay” or “essay-like” is anything but." And finally, she finishes her definition of "essay" with a profoundly anti-intellectual tirade against attempting to share opinions which are based in facts, evidence, or logic: "These texts include the kind of writing expected on the SAT, in seminar papers, dissertations, professional criticism or other scholarly writing; politically engaged texts or other forms of peremptory writing that insist upon their theses and leave no room for uncertainty; or other short prose forms in which the author’s subjectivity is purposely erased or disguised. What these texts often have in common is, first, their self-conscious hiding of the “I” under a shroud of objectivity. One has to pretend that one’s opinions or findings have emanated from some office of higher truth where rigor and science are the managers on duty." Nobody in their right mind believes a writer of an essay to be objective. But that doesn't mean we should just eschew any attempt to base our written opinions in reality. Speculation is fine for generating ideas, but well-formed, informed opinions are both harder to find and more valuable. Ironically, nowhere in this tirade does the author use the word "I", or admit that this is just her opinion, or allow for any doubt in the certitude of her assertions. Neither does she provide any evidence to back up her claims. It seems that she thinks that the problem with certitude is not really certitude, but "rigor and science", and she has decided to lead by example in removing these from her writing.

theoh 10y ago
I think the point is that the essay as a form is supposed to be speculative, it's supposed to be an attempt, a wager. Your last paragraph suggests that you don't allow the possibility that this piece is intended to be reflexive. In other words, it's an essay, so of course it's speculative. As a fan of the form, it shouldn't surprise us that she feels and writes this way. She seems to have experience of a very real problem, which, as a postgrad student in art, I'm also familiar with. In domains where feeling and intuition are appropriate, there are people pushing academic, rational agendas which kill the subject matter dead. If you haven't experienced this problem I respectfully suggest that you may not be in the target audience of this article.
- devishard 10y ago
  > Your last paragraph suggests that you don't allow the possibility that this piece is intended to be reflexive. If that's the intent, then maybe she shouldn't write it in exactly the absolutely certain voice that she's criticizing, except without the only part of that voice, the rationality, that makes that voice sometimes worthwhile. > In domains where feeling and intuition are appropriate, there are people pushing academic, rational agendas which kill the subject matter dead. If you haven't experienced this problem I respectfully suggest that you may not be in the target audience of this article. I've experienced a problem which I think you may be talking about: A lot of times people reject ideas or decisions that are based in intuition or feeling. They do so because they believe that intuition and feeling aren't rational. The problem is, that's not rational. Intuition and feeling are based in rationality, especially in domains where it's more important that a decision be quick than accurate, or when extended application of logic or search for evidence isn't likely to yield useful results. The flipside of that is what I think you're doing now: claiming that rationality kills domains where feeling and intuition are appropriate. Nothing is farther from the truth: killing a domain based in intuition and feeling by applying logic or evidence inappropriately is an irrational behavior. Julia Galef calls this "Straw Vulcanism"[1] and I recommend her talk; she does a better job of explaining it than I can. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc
  - theoh 10y ago
    Well, it is the "Opinionator" column, and she states the thesis she is proposing very clearly using "I believe" language in the third paragraph. You seem to claim that only rationality can make assertions worthwhile, but that's not universally accepted. See William James' notion of the Will to Believe. He argued that sometimes you must accept an unproven fact in order to take advantage of its implications. If you are expecting every sentence in the Opinionator piece to contain a "this is just my opinion, but", caveat, I'm not sure what viable model of writing you have in mind. There are rhetorical allowances that must be made, and it feels pedantic to complain about the author's tone of certainty. She's trying to lead a charge, inspire courage, etc. To address some of your later points: We know that humans have many cognitive biases, so intuition is not necessarily a rational thing. I should have put "rationality" in quotes in my comment -- I have no beef with rationality per se. However, in art, propositional knowledge is thin on the ground, and attempts to place the study or practice of art on a rational basis are necessarily reductive (because propositional approaches are just not adequate or available). One of my colleagues is a devotee of a quantum quackery approach to psychotherapy. I'm happy to accept that it's "rational" for them to follow this idea if it leads to good results in their artistic career. If they don't believe it themselves there are issues of sincerity when they participate. If they do believe it, they aren't being rational. I'm usually the guy who gets shouted down when I try to claim that aesthetic pleasure should be included in the category of rational "functions" of objects, so I think we essentially agree on the power and legitimacy of a rational approach to all aspects of experience. Quantum quackery and Skepticon talks are, it seems to me, totally incompatible and it's futile for any of us to reconcile those two audiences, for the time being. Ok?

theoh 10y ago

I think the point is that the essay as a form is supposed to be speculative, it's supposed to be an attempt, a wager. Your last paragraph suggests that you don't allow the possibility that this piece is intended to be reflexive. In other words, it's an essay, so of course it's speculative. As a fan of the form, it shouldn't surprise us that she feels and writes this way. She seems to have experience of a very real problem, which, as a postgrad student in art, I'm also familiar with. In domains where feeling and intuition are appropriate, there are people pushing academic, rational agendas which kill the subject matter dead. If you haven't experienced this problem I respectfully suggest that you may not be in the target audience of this article.

devishard 10y ago
> Your last paragraph suggests that you don't allow the possibility that this piece is intended to be reflexive. If that's the intent, then maybe she shouldn't write it in exactly the absolutely certain voice that she's criticizing, except without the only part of that voice, the rationality, that makes that voice sometimes worthwhile. > In domains where feeling and intuition are appropriate, there are people pushing academic, rational agendas which kill the subject matter dead. If you haven't experienced this problem I respectfully suggest that you may not be in the target audience of this article. I've experienced a problem which I think you may be talking about: A lot of times people reject ideas or decisions that are based in intuition or feeling. They do so because they believe that intuition and feeling aren't rational. The problem is, that's not rational. Intuition and feeling are based in rationality, especially in domains where it's more important that a decision be quick than accurate, or when extended application of logic or search for evidence isn't likely to yield useful results. The flipside of that is what I think you're doing now: claiming that rationality kills domains where feeling and intuition are appropriate. Nothing is farther from the truth: killing a domain based in intuition and feeling by applying logic or evidence inappropriately is an irrational behavior. Julia Galef calls this "Straw Vulcanism"[1] and I recommend her talk; she does a better job of explaining it than I can. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc
- theoh 10y ago
  Well, it is the "Opinionator" column, and she states the thesis she is proposing very clearly using "I believe" language in the third paragraph. You seem to claim that only rationality can make assertions worthwhile, but that's not universally accepted. See William James' notion of the Will to Believe. He argued that sometimes you must accept an unproven fact in order to take advantage of its implications. If you are expecting every sentence in the Opinionator piece to contain a "this is just my opinion, but", caveat, I'm not sure what viable model of writing you have in mind. There are rhetorical allowances that must be made, and it feels pedantic to complain about the author's tone of certainty. She's trying to lead a charge, inspire courage, etc. To address some of your later points: We know that humans have many cognitive biases, so intuition is not necessarily a rational thing. I should have put "rationality" in quotes in my comment -- I have no beef with rationality per se. However, in art, propositional knowledge is thin on the ground, and attempts to place the study or practice of art on a rational basis are necessarily reductive (because propositional approaches are just not adequate or available). One of my colleagues is a devotee of a quantum quackery approach to psychotherapy. I'm happy to accept that it's "rational" for them to follow this idea if it leads to good results in their artistic career. If they don't believe it themselves there are issues of sincerity when they participate. If they do believe it, they aren't being rational. I'm usually the guy who gets shouted down when I try to claim that aesthetic pleasure should be included in the category of rational "functions" of objects, so I think we essentially agree on the power and legitimacy of a rational approach to all aspects of experience. Quantum quackery and Skepticon talks are, it seems to me, totally incompatible and it's futile for any of us to reconcile those two audiences, for the time being. Ok?