4 ms·

>Previously the parameters of individual identity had been limited to an individual’s interaction with the people around him and the religious insights he had o

>Previously the parameters of individual identity had been limited to an individual’s interaction with the people around him and the religious insights he had over the course of his life. Thus individuality as we understand it today did not exist: people only understood their identity in relation to groups—their household, their manor, their town or parish—and in relation to God. This is a ridiculous argument. But par for the course for what passes as serious scholarship in the humanities these days. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair And Richard Dawkin's great piece: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html

Ensorceled 10y ago
Wait. Why, exactly, is this argument ridiculous? Your references are about the Sokal hoax; are you claiming this is a hoax too? Is your only evidence an unrelated 20 year old hoax? I'm somewhat credulous about the original assertion myself, but what is just as bad as shoddy humanities scholarship is the out of hand dismissing of all humanities scholarship as shoddy.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  The argument is ridiculous because it's saying that people had no sense of self and identity until mirrors are invented. This is plainly false to anyone who is a human being. It is also plainly false with a cursory look at ancient literature, which is full of characters with strong egos.
  - Ensorceled 10y ago
    That's not actually what the article says. It's saying the that sense of identity was mostly experienced as a set of relationships and roles and that an identity distinct from any role or relationship became more common place after mirrors and the clear self picture that provided to people. It's also not "plainly false" ... most people identify themselves by their roles and relationships. If you ask people to describe themselves they will universally use role and relationship descriptors: computer programmer, cop, Catholic, mother, grandfather, ... It is common for people who retire to have difficulty with the loss of identity that their job and role their occupation provided.
shawn-butler 10y ago
And your post is equally ridiculous as critique. If you disagree with the assertion post some disputed evidence. If you just want to dismiss it with a virtual eye roll then just ignore it instead. The essay made me think about the rise of selfie culture and its impact. On a recent trip at every cultural vista I would say 80% of the cameras were pointed at their owners with the landmark posing as a simple adornment of their own face. Snapchat has made billions on this recognition. That you huff and puff about scholarship "these days" like a grumpy old man is largely irrelevant to the value of the linked article.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  >That you huff and puff about scholarship "these days" like a grumpy old man Are you really going to defend the state of the humanities disciplines? I'd love to read your attempt at a reasoned defense of postmodernist drivel.
  - tstactplsignore 10y ago
    The humanities are incredibly diverse fields filled with tens of thousands of very different scholars- dismissing all of their work because you've seen a couple of silly examples purposefully chosen to be inflammatory is anti-intellectual by very definition.

Ensorceled 10y ago

Wait. Why, exactly, is this argument ridiculous? Your references are about the Sokal hoax; are you claiming this is a hoax too? Is your only evidence an unrelated 20 year old hoax? I'm somewhat credulous about the original assertion myself, but what is just as bad as shoddy humanities scholarship is the out of hand dismissing of all humanities scholarship as shoddy.

marcoperaza 10y ago
The argument is ridiculous because it's saying that people had no sense of self and identity until mirrors are invented. This is plainly false to anyone who is a human being. It is also plainly false with a cursory look at ancient literature, which is full of characters with strong egos.
- Ensorceled 10y ago
  That's not actually what the article says. It's saying the that sense of identity was mostly experienced as a set of relationships and roles and that an identity distinct from any role or relationship became more common place after mirrors and the clear self picture that provided to people. It's also not "plainly false" ... most people identify themselves by their roles and relationships. If you ask people to describe themselves they will universally use role and relationship descriptors: computer programmer, cop, Catholic, mother, grandfather, ... It is common for people who retire to have difficulty with the loss of identity that their job and role their occupation provided.

shawn-butler 10y ago

And your post is equally ridiculous as critique. If you disagree with the assertion post some disputed evidence. If you just want to dismiss it with a virtual eye roll then just ignore it instead. The essay made me think about the rise of selfie culture and its impact. On a recent trip at every cultural vista I would say 80% of the cameras were pointed at their owners with the landmark posing as a simple adornment of their own face. Snapchat has made billions on this recognition. That you huff and puff about scholarship "these days" like a grumpy old man is largely irrelevant to the value of the linked article.

marcoperaza 10y ago
>That you huff and puff about scholarship "these days" like a grumpy old man Are you really going to defend the state of the humanities disciplines? I'd love to read your attempt at a reasoned defense of postmodernist drivel.
- tstactplsignore 10y ago
  The humanities are incredibly diverse fields filled with tens of thousands of very different scholars- dismissing all of their work because you've seen a couple of silly examples purposefully chosen to be inflammatory is anti-intellectual by very definition.