6 ms·

I've had multiple arguments with people recently in which people have recommended not reading classic books on the grounds that the author held "toxic" views --

I've had multiple arguments with people recently in which people have recommended not reading classic books on the grounds that the author held "toxic" views --- even when the work being recommended had nothing to do with these views, when the views were very common at the time (e.g., imperialism can be good), or when, upon closer inspection, the author didn't even hold these views at all, and just "lived in a structure that profited from them". This anti-classics argument is distressingly common and it's impoverishing us intellectually. This style of argumentation is a lazy and formulaic way of dismissing practically any greater thinker. It's petty and shortsighted to cast aspersions over useful and influential work on the grounds of insufficient wokeness on the part of the dead.

naasking 8y ago
These days, any argument featuring the word "toxic" is very likely flawed and should be ignored. There's far too much moralizing and far too little understanding going around. Intellectual impoverishment is but one side-effect.
rezeroed 8y ago
PC 451.
- grawprog 8y ago
  I've always thought the world was heading in a more Farenheit 451 direction than 1984.
faitswulff 8y ago
Though you'd need to know what you consider toxic, what better way to practice identifying toxicity than to identify it in literature or the arts, before it's part of your personal life?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bobwaycott 8y ago
Ah, yes. I recall the first time I encountered this in the form of a trigger warning placed by Wilder Publications in Kant's Critiques (which collected Kant's Pure Reason, Practical Reason, and Judgment). It advised parents to talk with their kids about the way we believe differently today than Kant did two centuries ago before allowing them to read the old German philosopher. I've since seen and heard about so many more instances of this, that I wonder how on earth any allegedly adult college student can make it through a philosophy course anymore. Or history, psychology, sociology, literature, etc. I can't think of many significant figures in the whole of human history who didn't hold some kind of position that was a byproduct of their time that could be judged objectionable in some way by today's standards--and that now seems to be used as all the reason needed to completely disregard engaging with someone who is recognized as having had a transformative impact on history and thought. It's all very disheartening.
- Erik816 8y ago
  If you're old enough to be reading Kant, you're old enough to no longer need a parental warning.
  - bobwaycott 8y ago
    That was roughly my thought exactly when I encountered the warning. At first it was humorous. Then it was sad.
- tryitnow 8y ago
  What exactly is wrong with encouraging parents to talk to their kids about historical context? Isn't that something we should encourage? I am utterly bewildered by the contradiction in your response. On the one hand you cite a warning that explicitly tells parents to talk to their kids about the text and in the next paragraph you claim that such warnings tell people to "completely disregard" engagement. These are logically inconsistent claims. Please explain.
  - bobwaycott 8y ago
    First, kids don't read Kant. The volume in question was an assigned text in a college philosophy course. Second, I didn't suggest the Wilder warning mentioned in the first paragraph suggested anyone should disregard engagement. My second paragraph is talking about other instances of what I first encountered (in the first paragraph), and the act of holding up a historical figure's dated views as "all the reason needed to completely disregard engaging with someone who is recognized as having had a transformative impact on history and thought". There are no logically inconsistent claims being made here. Two separate paragraphs, two separate but related things being discussed. The first is not laying a logical foundation for an argument in the second.
tryitnow 8y ago
Is it common? Or is it just common among your peer group? There's a difference. I know a lot of "woke" people and none of them would advise against reading the classics, you really need to find different people to converse with.
throwaway304 8y ago
As the productivity gap increases, unproductive people will become more and more obsessed with petty ideological judgements. Life will become more like high school where clique membership matters more than getting results.
olavk 8y ago
> This anti-classics argument is distressingly common I have literally never heard this before, not even on the internet. In what communities is this a common viewpoint?
tzs 8y ago
Sounds similar to the kerfuffle over statues of and things named after people who owned slaves at a time when owning slaves was accepted by a large fraction of the population as fine. I wonder how many of the people getting upset over those statues and names, and how many of the people who they suggest should be subjects of replacement statues or supply replacement names, do/did things that are accepted as fine now but will be considered terrible 150 years from now? For instance, maybe the animal rights people win and a future Earth is all vegetarian or vegan, and then the statues we put up of MLK to replace statues of people like Robert E Lee come down, because MLK ate meat. Decisions about who gets a statue or gets things named after them should be based on the things they did that were extraordinary in their time and that have relevance to our time (either because those extraordinary things have effects in our time, or because we want to inspire people to do similar extraordinary things). The ordinary things they did in their time should not be relevant, regardless of what we now think of those ordinary things.
- olavk 8y ago
  Are you talking about the controversies regarding statues of Confederate war heroes? The thing they were celebrated for was fighting for the right of the confederate states to keep slavery. > at a time when owning slaves was accepted by a large fraction of the population as fine. I guess you don't count the slaves as part of the population then?
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    And it also ceases to address the fact that many of the Confederate statues were put up specifically to honor those who fought because the people who put up the statues didn't believe blacks should have civil rights and that the erections happened well after the civil war.

naasking 8y ago

These days, any argument featuring the word "toxic" is very likely flawed and should be ignored. There's far too much moralizing and far too little understanding going around. Intellectual impoverishment is but one side-effect.

rezeroed 8y ago

PC 451.

grawprog 8y ago
I've always thought the world was heading in a more Farenheit 451 direction than 1984.

faitswulff 8y ago

Though you'd need to know what you consider toxic, what better way to practice identifying toxicity than to identify it in literature or the arts, before it's part of your personal life?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bobwaycott 8y ago

Ah, yes. I recall the first time I encountered this in the form of a trigger warning placed by Wilder Publications in Kant's Critiques (which collected Kant's Pure Reason, Practical Reason, and Judgment). It advised parents to talk with their kids about the way we believe differently today than Kant did two centuries ago before allowing them to read the old German philosopher. I've since seen and heard about so many more instances of this, that I wonder how on earth any allegedly adult college student can make it through a philosophy course anymore. Or history, psychology, sociology, literature, etc. I can't think of many significant figures in the whole of human history who didn't hold some kind of position that was a byproduct of their time that could be judged objectionable in some way by today's standards--and that now seems to be used as all the reason needed to completely disregard engaging with someone who is recognized as having had a transformative impact on history and thought. It's all very disheartening.

Erik816 8y ago
If you're old enough to be reading Kant, you're old enough to no longer need a parental warning.
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  That was roughly my thought exactly when I encountered the warning. At first it was humorous. Then it was sad.
tryitnow 8y ago
What exactly is wrong with encouraging parents to talk to their kids about historical context? Isn't that something we should encourage? I am utterly bewildered by the contradiction in your response. On the one hand you cite a warning that explicitly tells parents to talk to their kids about the text and in the next paragraph you claim that such warnings tell people to "completely disregard" engagement. These are logically inconsistent claims. Please explain.
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  First, kids don't read Kant. The volume in question was an assigned text in a college philosophy course. Second, I didn't suggest the Wilder warning mentioned in the first paragraph suggested anyone should disregard engagement. My second paragraph is talking about other instances of what I first encountered (in the first paragraph), and the act of holding up a historical figure's dated views as "all the reason needed to completely disregard engaging with someone who is recognized as having had a transformative impact on history and thought". There are no logically inconsistent claims being made here. Two separate paragraphs, two separate but related things being discussed. The first is not laying a logical foundation for an argument in the second.

tryitnow 8y ago

Is it common? Or is it just common among your peer group? There's a difference. I know a lot of "woke" people and none of them would advise against reading the classics, you really need to find different people to converse with.

throwaway304 8y ago

As the productivity gap increases, unproductive people will become more and more obsessed with petty ideological judgements. Life will become more like high school where clique membership matters more than getting results.

olavk 8y ago

> This anti-classics argument is distressingly common I have literally never heard this before, not even on the internet. In what communities is this a common viewpoint?

tzs 8y ago

Sounds similar to the kerfuffle over statues of and things named after people who owned slaves at a time when owning slaves was accepted by a large fraction of the population as fine. I wonder how many of the people getting upset over those statues and names, and how many of the people who they suggest should be subjects of replacement statues or supply replacement names, do/did things that are accepted as fine now but will be considered terrible 150 years from now? For instance, maybe the animal rights people win and a future Earth is all vegetarian or vegan, and then the statues we put up of MLK to replace statues of people like Robert E Lee come down, because MLK ate meat. Decisions about who gets a statue or gets things named after them should be based on the things they did that were extraordinary in their time and that have relevance to our time (either because those extraordinary things have effects in our time, or because we want to inspire people to do similar extraordinary things). The ordinary things they did in their time should not be relevant, regardless of what we now think of those ordinary things.

olavk 8y ago
Are you talking about the controversies regarding statues of Confederate war heroes? The thing they were celebrated for was fighting for the right of the confederate states to keep slavery. > at a time when owning slaves was accepted by a large fraction of the population as fine. I guess you don't count the slaves as part of the population then?
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  And it also ceases to address the fact that many of the Confederate statues were put up specifically to honor those who fought because the people who put up the statues didn't believe blacks should have civil rights and that the erections happened well after the civil war.