This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is clearly just a rhetorical gesture on Adorno's part to illustrate the attitude he's criticizing. His actual motivation for thinking the way he thinks doesn't have anything to do with fear of being labeled an eccentric.
Is reading not something that can be done well, as opposed to poorly? Is it not possible to read thoughtfully and carefully, and equally possible to read thoughtlessly and carelessly? (e.g. a student rushing through a novel to cram for an exam, vs someone who chooses to give his full attention to the novel out of genuine interest?)
Adorno was literally paid to read, so ceteris paribus, we'd expect him to be better at it than average, if for no other reason than that he had lots of time to practice.
Do you think that it's possible to lead a meaningful and holistic life, as opposed to one that is not? Maybe it's possible, but not particularly valuable either way, and thus not something to be aspired to? Or do you think that it's both possible and something that is proper to aspire to, but you just have specific issues with Adorno's presentation?
Is "nerd" meant to be a term of self-deprecation here? Do you think that the hobbies you spend your time on are meaningful, or no? (Not that I think that this is the sort of question that could be reduced to a binary choice; but we have to start somewhere.) If you don't think they're meaningful, then that raises the question of why you would persist in doing something that you think is meaningless.
I apologize for the rapid succession of questions, but I want to understand how much of your criticism stems from a disagreement over the object-level points of contention, and how much of it stems from a personal grievance against Adorno.
I only knew adorno by reputation, which in my circles wasn’t great. Now having read these few pages of primary source, I feel I understand him much better, and despise him far more. He’s a bitter, spiteful man, utterly devoid of what one might call, generosity of spirit. Just this morning I was reading about postmodern art, and I came upon one of his quotes “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.“ – That fucking scold, I thought. People have never needed poetry, and art in general, as much as after Auschwitz. Adorno’s chief purpose in life seems to nag and make others miserable.
But you’re right of course, all that is a little ad-hominem-y. Let’s get to what he says, as opposed to the how and why.
Sure, that can happen. But he implied that those who read 'as a hobby' , ie most people, always read carelessly, while he never reads carelessly. That is an unproven, absolute and pointless claim of superiority. It would be like claiming he’s a very good driver, therefore he should never be fined for speeding. While trying to erase the conceptual regime that discriminates between work and not-work, he invents new conceptual distinctions (his reading versus normal people reading) which make far less sense.
Holistic is a bullshit term, as in holistic medicine, holistic science, holistic nutrition, holistic shower gel. I believe people’s lives are meaningful already.
Sure. Take this place. On a very modest level, I think exchanging ideas is potentially helping the world. Even in my most cynical moments, when I think it has no "redeeming social value" and is just for fun, I find that meaningful, too.
I don't agree with this statement either. But just because he says some things that are incorrect doesn't mean he can't also say some things that are correct.
Let's address the root of the issue instead of quibbling over the interpretation of the text. Let's grant that Adorno thinks he's smarter (or a better reader, or just plain better) than everyone else.
...so what? Why does that upset you? Why the visceral reaction?
There are lots of intelligent and skilled people who also happen to be very arrogant. But that doesn't actually detract from the quality of their work. If you refuse to listen to anyone who thinks they're smarter than you, you're gonna have a rough time.
Stephen Wolfram (known for having a huge ego) thinks he's smarter than me (and it's very probable that he is), but that didn't deter my interest in his newest article on machine-generated proofs. I am confident (and in fact I believe it's been explicitly confirmed on one or two occasions) that there are members of this forum who have read my posts, found them lacking, and consequently judge themselves to be wiser and more intelligent than I am. But I harbor no ill will towards them, and as long as they keep writing good posts, I'll continue to read and appreciate their work.
The reason I shared the original quote was because I thought that it managed to paint a picture, in very few words, of what a meaningful life and a meaningful relation to one's "hobbies" would look like:
This has stuck with me ever since I first read it. I think it's great, and it's what I try to aspire to be (although the flesh is weak). And it's quite possible to consider this idea in isolation, apart from Adorno's politics, his view of "the masses", his own opinion of himself, etc. If it just doesn't speak to you that's fine. I just want to make it clear that it can be considered in isolation.
Everyone's life? Is everyone's life equally meaningful? Is it not possible for people to make bad choices and end up doing things that are meaningless?
I don’t mind arrogance as such. You can catch me admitting that normal people are pretty stupid, too. But that doesn’t mean their lives and hobbies are meaningless and their thoughts ‘false consciousness’.
That passage we discuss is not just arrogance, it’s unjustified arrogance, it’s wrong. Hobby readers read ‘with all their attention’ too. And their hobby of reading is ‘part and parcel of their lives’ too.
You speculate that what I wrote reflects some sort of ego-driven rejection of others’ superiority, that I’m offended (and you’re allowed to do that, even though I think it’s incorrect). You form a model of my personality based on my writings. Well, that’s just what I did with his. It jumps up at me that he’s someone who resents the happiness of others….. (((((((((((“under capitalism”)))))))). That last part is just a fig leaf.
Paraphrasing adorno: ‘people should have no hobbies, no poetry, no beautiful buildings, their lives and thoughts are meaningless. (((((((((((again, “under capitalism”))))))))’. There’s superiority in that statement, but it’s not the superiority that bothers me. It’s the hostility to joy, beauty, meaning, life.
Death of the author, huh? Even ignoring all context, I still think “reading with all my attention” is pretentious, describing something as “part and parcel of my life” is trite, and hobbies are not mock-worthy. But whatever floats your boat, as long as I don't have to hear it during smalltalk.
I disagree, for at least some subset of "hobby readers". I think there are many people who are poor readers, or who read with only partial attention. Case in point.
And surely it's gotten even worse since the introduction of smartphones.
There's nothing that is hostile to joy or beauty in the conception of a meaningful life that Adorno sketched in the passage I originally quoted. In fact I think it's very beautiful. That's why I originally quoted it.
I don't think it's pretentious. I think it's a concept that should be taken very seriously.
It is not.
I believe these are our most substantive points of disagreement. I'm happy to discuss any of these points further.
I think we squeezed what there was to squeeze here. Until next time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Quick reply, sorry. Just pointing a finger in the vague direction of a possible origin for these feelings.
Consider that there are quite a lot of people, now mostly on the intellectual left, who seem to spend so much time discussing how elevated and clever and sophisticated they are that they never actually get round to being very clever (in my opinion).
Consider also what it means to be a Populist which a capital P. It is to believe, axiomatically, that ordinary people’s lives have worth and meaning as they are, and consequently implies deep suspicion of people who claim that the masses (present company included) are somehow ‘doing it wrong’. This isn’t to say that there is no such thing as a good life or a bad life, only a deep suspicion of letting those things be defined by elite ‘sophisticated’ weirdos in such a way as to exclude the mass of people.
I think the amount that academic Marxist philosophers reference their own intelligence is about on par with how often Motte posters reference their own intelligence. Probably less, actually.
Anyway, this statement:
Seems to be in tension with this statement:
If it is possible to make mistakes and live a meaningless life, how can you know a priori that "ordinary people" are living meaningful lives? How do you know that they're not making the types of mistakes that you've already admitted are possible? Don't we have to look at the facts and see how people are actually living, rather than simply believing it as an article of faith that people are making all the right decisions?
Perhaps, you might say, you have looked at the facts, and you have concluded that ordinary people are generally living meaningful lives. You believe that Adorno has looked at the same facts and come to a different judgement. And that's fine! That's a substantive point of disagreement that we can have a further discussion about. All I'm saying is that we should make the conversation about that, rather than Adorno's arrogance or elitism.
No one is saying that you have to "let" anybody define anything.
I've run into this sort of objection a few times on TheMotte and it's possible that it stems from a cultural difference between the humanities and technical fields.
In STEM fields, when you cite a published paper and say "X made Y claim in Z paper", this is roughly equivalent to an assertion that there is strong evidence that Y claim is true, because it made it through peer review and was published in a reputable journal. Although there are many caveats, there is a certain presumption that the top scientists getting published are authorities and we should believe what they say. They're contributing to a stable body of knowledge whose integrity is validated by the scientific community, and the role of the student is to absorb this knowledge rather than trying to poke holes in it.
In philosophy, the presumption of authority is much weaker. Students don't go into philosophy class and get taught "living a meaningful life is X Y Z because Adorno said so". The presentation is more like "Adorno said living a meaningful life is X Y Z... ok, now here's next week's reading, also by a famous philosopher, which says the exact opposite". You're supposed to talk back to the text. You're supposed to challenge his definitions and his framing. That's a good thing. That's the process working as intended. You don't have to "let" him define anything because you're free to disagree with anything and everything he says.
I can't say there's no presumption of authority in philosophy, if for no other reason than the fact that published philosophers have spent a lot of time working on the questions they're addressing, so they've probably gotten better at it than people who haven't spent the same amount of time. But in general a philosophy text should be approached as a potential partner in a dialogue, rather than as something from which you are supposed to extract verifiable, concrete information.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link