A resistance to the disease of thought.
September 10, 2002 7:14 AM Subscribe
A resistance to the disease of thought.
"On historic day, U.S. turns away from eloquence."
-- Lewis H. Lapham
"The boundaries of my language are the boundaries of my world."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Submitted without color commentary (even though I do have an opinion.)
"On historic day, U.S. turns away from eloquence."
-- Lewis H. Lapham
"The boundaries of my language are the boundaries of my world."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Submitted without color commentary (even though I do have an opinion.)
A fine example of what used to be defined as Highbrow, middlebrow, and lowbrow criticism....Lapham is a distinguised writer, caught up inthe uses and abuses of language (see for central icon Orwell: Politics and the English Language). But for many Americans, they want....not sure what. Suffice it to say: fret not. Who puts time aside and thinks about Pearl Harbor? 9/11? this too shall slip into history and be merely noted in passing some 50 years from this first anniversary.
posted by Postroad at 7:25 AM on September 10, 2002
posted by Postroad at 7:25 AM on September 10, 2002
Postroad - can we not confess that, for all his undeniable brilliance, he is far too lefty and not impartially contrary enough for us conservatives' full enjoyment? ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:30 AM on September 10, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:30 AM on September 10, 2002
MC--we see things not as They are but rather as We are. Try this, then: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/10/anniversary/index.html
posted by Postroad at 7:36 AM on September 10, 2002
posted by Postroad at 7:36 AM on September 10, 2002
All I know is, this is the funniest sentence I've read in months: "a PBS documentary that asks, Where Was God on September 11th? and answers the question in words suitable for a throw pillow."
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 8:03 AM on September 10, 2002
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 8:03 AM on September 10, 2002
It might be expected of Lapham to use 9/11 as an excuse for a bit of government/media bashing (then again, virtually everything is an excuse for a bit of government/media bashing for 'ol Lewis), but I'm a bit surprised at the level of bitterness in his cynicism. Maybe someday, somehow, something in America will measure up to Lapham's high standards - but its nice of him to let us all know how disappointed he is in the way we grieve.
What I do know is that the families of the dead, and a number of those who narrowly escaped death down there (myself included) virtually all think the ceremony is tasteful and just about exactly right. While I'm sure on MeFi there will be all manner of rooting and Arsenio arm-whoops for Lewis (you tell 'em Lewis), for the few that might appreciate a different view of both the events ... and the US ... here's what Peggy Noonan wrote about tomorrow ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:07 AM on September 10, 2002
What I do know is that the families of the dead, and a number of those who narrowly escaped death down there (myself included) virtually all think the ceremony is tasteful and just about exactly right. While I'm sure on MeFi there will be all manner of rooting and Arsenio arm-whoops for Lewis (you tell 'em Lewis), for the few that might appreciate a different view of both the events ... and the US ... here's what Peggy Noonan wrote about tomorrow ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:07 AM on September 10, 2002
Oh yeah, MidasMulligan hasn't gone on and on about how the Founding Fathers expected more of citizens, expected responsibilities with freedom, etc. You don't mourn the passing of certain standards. I'm sure you wouldn't want to see more eloquence and depth in speeches and ceremony. Actually, I think you do want that, but you'd prefer that the person saying so was a conservative like yourself.
posted by raysmj at 8:18 AM on September 10, 2002
posted by raysmj at 8:18 AM on September 10, 2002
This, I think, is the core of the problem for me:
I don't think anyone is suggesting someone stand up and tell Christopher Reeve jokes tomorrow--just that they say something original and honest.
posted by Fabulon7 at 8:23 AM on September 10, 2002
During the first months after the disappearance of the trade towers the newspapers burbled with predictions of America on the verge of a moral and political awakening, forced to new ways of thinking not only about the world on the far side of its once protective oceans but also about itself.I really thought America had a chance to turn this whole awful disaster into something positive. But now, a year later, it's still status quo and predictable rhetoric.
I don't think anyone is suggesting someone stand up and tell Christopher Reeve jokes tomorrow--just that they say something original and honest.
posted by Fabulon7 at 8:23 AM on September 10, 2002
If people actually read "Harpers" instead of displaying it for visitors on their coffee tables, Lapham's shallow reputation among Shakespeareans would be universally held.
posted by RavinDave at 8:27 AM on September 10, 2002
posted by RavinDave at 8:27 AM on September 10, 2002
If nobody wants to give an original speech tomorrow, maybe instead we can print out a ton of blog entries from September 11, 2001 and post them up all over the city.
I'm serious.
posted by Tin Man at 8:29 AM on September 10, 2002
I'm serious.
posted by Tin Man at 8:29 AM on September 10, 2002
If nobody wants to give an original speech tomorrow, maybe instead we can print out a ton of blog entries from September 11, 2001 and post them up all over the city.
Well, you'd really have to filter out all the "OMG, that is the suXXors" blog entries.
posted by thanotopsis at 8:53 AM on September 10, 2002
Well, you'd really have to filter out all the "OMG, that is the suXXors" blog entries.
posted by thanotopsis at 8:53 AM on September 10, 2002
"On historic day, U.S. turns away from eloquence."
Okay, this is making me nuts: Is Lapham being all clever and meta and ineloquent to make his point, by deliberately omitting an article? Or, more likely, is this a typo - almost certainly attributable to the Star - that should read: "On this historic day,..." or "On historic days...", or "Today, the U.S. turns away from eloquence? In fact, I'm looking at a stack of Harper's right here in my living room and there's not a typo among them. Not to mention that Lapham never says plain old "U.S." - it's always "the U.S." What gives, Star?
posted by DenOfSizer at 8:54 AM on September 10, 2002
Okay, this is making me nuts: Is Lapham being all clever and meta and ineloquent to make his point, by deliberately omitting an article? Or, more likely, is this a typo - almost certainly attributable to the Star - that should read: "On this historic day,..." or "On historic days...", or "Today, the U.S. turns away from eloquence? In fact, I'm looking at a stack of Harper's right here in my living room and there's not a typo among them. Not to mention that Lapham never says plain old "U.S." - it's always "the U.S." What gives, Star?
posted by DenOfSizer at 8:54 AM on September 10, 2002
Even though I think Lapham goes overboard with his own polemic, I basically agree with him. Having Pataki recite the Gettysburg Address is Mayor Quimby-league amateurism. That politicians were asked not to speak in their own words (or to think at all) is fodder for any number of jokes.
Lately though I've realized that sports are practice nationalism, and Super Bowl Halftime shows do affect a whole lot of people. The shows do nothing for me, but I don't think it's my place in our culture to be affected. Lapham's either.
A long time ago I learned not to second-guess other people's grief. There's no point in being resentful or judgmental, the only appropriate response is compassion and sometimes distance. Everyone deals with loss in their own way, the cultural echos of ethnic roots. There is beauty in this too, an aching beauty of individuals standing alone against the floodwaters of time. Knowledge of mortality is our gift.
What Lapham is proposing is a sort of emotional fascism. A smug declaration that the masses do not know how to grieve and that the official ceremonies are incapable of expressing what they 'should feel'. In a way I prefer the hollowness of what's coming, it's a reminder to turn inward to the only place we can actually confront what's been lost.
posted by joemaller at 9:02 AM on September 10, 2002
Lately though I've realized that sports are practice nationalism, and Super Bowl Halftime shows do affect a whole lot of people. The shows do nothing for me, but I don't think it's my place in our culture to be affected. Lapham's either.
A long time ago I learned not to second-guess other people's grief. There's no point in being resentful or judgmental, the only appropriate response is compassion and sometimes distance. Everyone deals with loss in their own way, the cultural echos of ethnic roots. There is beauty in this too, an aching beauty of individuals standing alone against the floodwaters of time. Knowledge of mortality is our gift.
What Lapham is proposing is a sort of emotional fascism. A smug declaration that the masses do not know how to grieve and that the official ceremonies are incapable of expressing what they 'should feel'. In a way I prefer the hollowness of what's coming, it's a reminder to turn inward to the only place we can actually confront what's been lost.
posted by joemaller at 9:02 AM on September 10, 2002
Oh yeah, MidasMulligan hasn't gone on and on about how the Founding Fathers expected more of citizens, expected responsibilities with freedom, etc. You don't mourn the passing of certain standards. I'm sure you wouldn't want to see more eloquence and depth in speeches and ceremony. Actually, I think you do want that, but you'd prefer that the person saying so was a conservative like yourself.
This is simply not true. What Lapham and the other article perceive in a highly negative light, I perceive as remarkably positive. The fact that politicians would restrain themselves from grandstanding, in an election season, shows admirable restraint.
(With the Laphams of the world - there's no way to win ... had politicians given their own speeches, they would have been accused of using the event for their own purposes, the fact that there will be no speeches means that they are now accused of a lack of eloquence, or of being afraid of saying something wrong).
I do remember that day - I ran down a couple dozen floors of the World Financial Center, into the chaos of falling bodies and buildings, and while I've been in pretty weird situations around the world, I have never felt fear as overwhelming as I felt on 9/11 - but my sharpest memory of the day was running as fast as I could from the scene, and passing NYC fireman that were running in the opposite direction. I saw their eyes - and in those eyes was the same terror that I felt, but also a mighty determination. They were not just fighting fire, they were fighting their own fear with every step they took. But they did it. They ran into those buildings and saved countless people. They found some sort of power inside of themselves that moved their own fear aisde in the same way as it moved debris out of the way. The stature of the character of those men still fills me with awe.
The ones that survived, and the families of those that didn't were consulted by the politicians about how to do tomorrow's event. They almost universally approve of it. A ceremony where there is no political grandstanding. Bagpipe processions from the boroughs. A simple reading of the names. The only speech being a recitation of the Gettysburgh Address (it may not resonate or be considered appropriate to Lapham, but for the firemen and their families, the words will go straight to the soul ... "But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate-we cannot consecrate-we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.")
The people that put together tomorrow's ground zero events did not do so to please the cynics in American culture (who would have sniped at the event no matter what it was) - it was first and foremost put together for the families that lost their lives, and the people that survived the carnage. Most of these people didn't want long, tear-jerking sentimentalist speeches. The event is almost unbelievably restrained - and in my opinion it is close to perfect.
And when I contrast the look I saw in those fireman's eyes, with the juvenile, petty bitterness of Lapham's sentiments, there's no question - to me - about who's opinion about tomorrow's event matters.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:11 AM on September 10, 2002
This is simply not true. What Lapham and the other article perceive in a highly negative light, I perceive as remarkably positive. The fact that politicians would restrain themselves from grandstanding, in an election season, shows admirable restraint.
(With the Laphams of the world - there's no way to win ... had politicians given their own speeches, they would have been accused of using the event for their own purposes, the fact that there will be no speeches means that they are now accused of a lack of eloquence, or of being afraid of saying something wrong).
I do remember that day - I ran down a couple dozen floors of the World Financial Center, into the chaos of falling bodies and buildings, and while I've been in pretty weird situations around the world, I have never felt fear as overwhelming as I felt on 9/11 - but my sharpest memory of the day was running as fast as I could from the scene, and passing NYC fireman that were running in the opposite direction. I saw their eyes - and in those eyes was the same terror that I felt, but also a mighty determination. They were not just fighting fire, they were fighting their own fear with every step they took. But they did it. They ran into those buildings and saved countless people. They found some sort of power inside of themselves that moved their own fear aisde in the same way as it moved debris out of the way. The stature of the character of those men still fills me with awe.
The ones that survived, and the families of those that didn't were consulted by the politicians about how to do tomorrow's event. They almost universally approve of it. A ceremony where there is no political grandstanding. Bagpipe processions from the boroughs. A simple reading of the names. The only speech being a recitation of the Gettysburgh Address (it may not resonate or be considered appropriate to Lapham, but for the firemen and their families, the words will go straight to the soul ... "But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate-we cannot consecrate-we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.")
The people that put together tomorrow's ground zero events did not do so to please the cynics in American culture (who would have sniped at the event no matter what it was) - it was first and foremost put together for the families that lost their lives, and the people that survived the carnage. Most of these people didn't want long, tear-jerking sentimentalist speeches. The event is almost unbelievably restrained - and in my opinion it is close to perfect.
And when I contrast the look I saw in those fireman's eyes, with the juvenile, petty bitterness of Lapham's sentiments, there's no question - to me - about who's opinion about tomorrow's event matters.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:11 AM on September 10, 2002
Midas: What I was writing about was your assumption that Lampham has standards that are consistently too high, that no average American can reach. You're all into standards, and to act as if you're not ever preachy or seemingly above other people is disingenuous. If George Will had written the same thing, only from a clearly conservative direction (which is entirely possible - he's written against the Super Bowl, public shallowness, victim culture, etc.), you'd likely agree with it. (I'm quite sure that aaron would have, by the way - he spent much of the days after Sept. 11 arguing that metafilterians were using too many cliches, that "everything had changed" wasn't true, etc.)
posted by raysmj at 9:22 AM on September 10, 2002
posted by raysmj at 9:22 AM on September 10, 2002
Perhaps Susan Sontag says it better:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/10/opinion/10SONT.html
" Abraham Lincoln's speeches were not just inspirational prose. They were bold statements of new national goals in a time of real, terrible war. The Second Inaugural Address dared to herald the reconciliation that must follow Northern victory in the Civil War. The primacy of the commitment to end slavery was the point of Lincoln's exaltation of freedom in the Gettysburg Address. But when the great Lincoln speeches are ritually cited, or recycled for commemoration, they have become completely emptied of meaning. They are now gestures of nobility, of greatness of spirit. The reasons for their greatness are irrelevant.
Such an anachronistic borrowing of eloquence is in the grand tradition of American anti-intellectualism: the suspicion of thought, of words. Hiding behind the humbug that the attack of last Sept. 11 was too horrible, too devastating, too painful, too tragic for words, that words could not possibly express our grief and indignation, our leaders have a perfect excuse to drape themselves in others' words, now voided of content. To say something might be controversial. It might actually drift into some kind of statement and therefore invite rebuttal. Not saying anything is best."
posted by nofundy at 9:25 AM on September 10, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/10/opinion/10SONT.html
" Abraham Lincoln's speeches were not just inspirational prose. They were bold statements of new national goals in a time of real, terrible war. The Second Inaugural Address dared to herald the reconciliation that must follow Northern victory in the Civil War. The primacy of the commitment to end slavery was the point of Lincoln's exaltation of freedom in the Gettysburg Address. But when the great Lincoln speeches are ritually cited, or recycled for commemoration, they have become completely emptied of meaning. They are now gestures of nobility, of greatness of spirit. The reasons for their greatness are irrelevant.
Such an anachronistic borrowing of eloquence is in the grand tradition of American anti-intellectualism: the suspicion of thought, of words. Hiding behind the humbug that the attack of last Sept. 11 was too horrible, too devastating, too painful, too tragic for words, that words could not possibly express our grief and indignation, our leaders have a perfect excuse to drape themselves in others' words, now voided of content. To say something might be controversial. It might actually drift into some kind of statement and therefore invite rebuttal. Not saying anything is best."
posted by nofundy at 9:25 AM on September 10, 2002
Lewis Lapham is a useless old hack, sour as grappa, who should be stuffed into a bottle and thrown into the Gulf Stream. He's flat out ruined Harper's Magazine, now as tiresome as he is. This article is a perfect example of why I can't wait for him to die, since it seems the only way to be rid of him.
posted by mojohand at 9:34 AM on September 10, 2002
posted by mojohand at 9:34 AM on September 10, 2002
If George Will had written the same thing, only from a clearly conservative direction (which is entirely possible - he's written against the Super Bowl, public shallowness, victim culture, etc.), you'd likely agree with it.
I'm not certain how to say this more clearly. You are telling me that you know what I'm thinking better than I know what I'm thinking. I don't give a shit who said it. This has nothing to do with left or right. The majority of the firemen that lost their lives were probably democrats. I do know that I really went back and forth about going to ground zero tomorrow - the effects of that day on both myself and my wife (we both worked in the WFC) were profound. On the one hand, I do feel a strong urge to stand quietly with a group of people that were there that day (there's an inexplicable feeling of kinship), but I simply could not have tolerated a bunch of politicians using tomorrow a means to demonstrate their "eloquence". joemaller got it exactly right - this is an interior event. When I heard what had finally been planned - I was quite surprised, and extremely pleased. The fact that the politicians - both Republican and Democrat - agreed to show that much restraint, and to simply be there to facilitate an event that they understand is not for them, but for the survivors of 9/11, is something I thank them for.
To the vast majority of the survivors and the families of those that were lost - the organizers got the event exactly right - and the biggest reason they got it right was because they did talk to those families. Its positively bizarre for me to see people now using those plans as an excuse to accuse those politicians of being afraid to say something wrong. I don't care whether Lapham or Will or any other damn person wants to hold such a sentiment. It would still be simply flat out incorrect.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:47 AM on September 10, 2002
I'm not certain how to say this more clearly. You are telling me that you know what I'm thinking better than I know what I'm thinking. I don't give a shit who said it. This has nothing to do with left or right. The majority of the firemen that lost their lives were probably democrats. I do know that I really went back and forth about going to ground zero tomorrow - the effects of that day on both myself and my wife (we both worked in the WFC) were profound. On the one hand, I do feel a strong urge to stand quietly with a group of people that were there that day (there's an inexplicable feeling of kinship), but I simply could not have tolerated a bunch of politicians using tomorrow a means to demonstrate their "eloquence". joemaller got it exactly right - this is an interior event. When I heard what had finally been planned - I was quite surprised, and extremely pleased. The fact that the politicians - both Republican and Democrat - agreed to show that much restraint, and to simply be there to facilitate an event that they understand is not for them, but for the survivors of 9/11, is something I thank them for.
To the vast majority of the survivors and the families of those that were lost - the organizers got the event exactly right - and the biggest reason they got it right was because they did talk to those families. Its positively bizarre for me to see people now using those plans as an excuse to accuse those politicians of being afraid to say something wrong. I don't care whether Lapham or Will or any other damn person wants to hold such a sentiment. It would still be simply flat out incorrect.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:47 AM on September 10, 2002
"The boundaries of my language are the boundaries of my world."
Ludwig Wittgenstein
When that boundary is crossed, what then? When words fail, gesture and ceremony attempt to fill the void. The choice is to communicate through alternative means or wither into silence. The author chooses neither and clings to his words.
posted by rainbaby at 10:19 AM on September 10, 2002
Ludwig Wittgenstein
When that boundary is crossed, what then? When words fail, gesture and ceremony attempt to fill the void. The choice is to communicate through alternative means or wither into silence. The author chooses neither and clings to his words.
posted by rainbaby at 10:19 AM on September 10, 2002
The event is almost unbelievably restrained - and in my opinion it is close to perfect.
But you haven't even seen it yet, have you? You're reading the same descriptions as everyone else?
Anyway, I don't like it. I think there should be some original rhetorical content. It's time for a great speech to be made, if only to see if we're still capable of making speeches in the grand tradition, or if we've lost that in the process of becoming a media culture. Nofundy gets the motivation right; we've all been told that the english language cannot adequately describe an event like this, which of course is silly and indulgent. Of course it can. 3000 deaths isn't all that much in the final tally of human suffering, and if people can work through their emotions to speak eloquently of the horrors of Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Dresden, Andersonville, et. al without dishonoring them, then we can certainly do it for this comparatively minor incident. I wish these celebrations were less about picking at old wounds and more about getting over ourselves.
posted by Hildago at 10:23 AM on September 10, 2002
But you haven't even seen it yet, have you? You're reading the same descriptions as everyone else?
Anyway, I don't like it. I think there should be some original rhetorical content. It's time for a great speech to be made, if only to see if we're still capable of making speeches in the grand tradition, or if we've lost that in the process of becoming a media culture. Nofundy gets the motivation right; we've all been told that the english language cannot adequately describe an event like this, which of course is silly and indulgent. Of course it can. 3000 deaths isn't all that much in the final tally of human suffering, and if people can work through their emotions to speak eloquently of the horrors of Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Dresden, Andersonville, et. al without dishonoring them, then we can certainly do it for this comparatively minor incident. I wish these celebrations were less about picking at old wounds and more about getting over ourselves.
posted by Hildago at 10:23 AM on September 10, 2002
God. What a priggish asshole Lapham has become. Give it up, Lewis -- Americans love tractor pulls and country music. I don't love them, myself, but I'm not pulling up my socks to step through the very idea.
posted by dhartung at 10:26 AM on September 10, 2002
posted by dhartung at 10:26 AM on September 10, 2002
3000 deaths isn't all that much in the final tally of human suffering
Wow. Thanks for putting that in perspective. I'll be sure to let those I stand with tomorrow know that this is really no big deal. Perhaps you'd like to attend tomorrow as well, just to make sure everyone realizes how childish they are being. Let them know that they shouldn't focus on "picking old wounds", but should be actively critisizing the politicians for for not using the event in the way you consider correct. I'm sure that's exactly the sort of eloquence everyone is secretly waiting for.
It boils down to this: For most of those the event is for, it is not only appropriate, but almost surprisingly correct. And these people don't give a fuck what your opinion, or Lapham's, or anyone else's is about that. Most will simply listen in silence to the names being read. They'll hear the name of the loved one that was lost. Some will recognize dozens of names of friends and co-workers. Each will - in their own way - digest this.
For some strange reason I cannot begin to fathom, this is provoking people to critisize the event organizers, and now even to remind people that this event really is small in comparison to other much bigger events of human pain. The viscious, mean-spirited intentions behind such sentiments are just inconceivable to me.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:50 AM on September 10, 2002
Wow. Thanks for putting that in perspective. I'll be sure to let those I stand with tomorrow know that this is really no big deal. Perhaps you'd like to attend tomorrow as well, just to make sure everyone realizes how childish they are being. Let them know that they shouldn't focus on "picking old wounds", but should be actively critisizing the politicians for for not using the event in the way you consider correct. I'm sure that's exactly the sort of eloquence everyone is secretly waiting for.
It boils down to this: For most of those the event is for, it is not only appropriate, but almost surprisingly correct. And these people don't give a fuck what your opinion, or Lapham's, or anyone else's is about that. Most will simply listen in silence to the names being read. They'll hear the name of the loved one that was lost. Some will recognize dozens of names of friends and co-workers. Each will - in their own way - digest this.
For some strange reason I cannot begin to fathom, this is provoking people to critisize the event organizers, and now even to remind people that this event really is small in comparison to other much bigger events of human pain. The viscious, mean-spirited intentions behind such sentiments are just inconceivable to me.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:50 AM on September 10, 2002
Midas: You're "freedom with responsibilities" bit was without question the most identifiable bit of elitist sentiment I've ever seen on metafilter. Who decides what the responsibilities are? The people? No, politicians, nobility, the landed gentry, what have you. At least that was the original idea. There's nothing particularly wrong with that. I do have a problem, however, with people who try to be elitist and populist simultaneously. It suggests to me that their elitism or populism is a front for something else.
OK, being for "restraint" sounds very conservative. (Lapham's own editorial is in plenty of ways profoundly conservative.) But you're against politicians speaking eloquently? So how come you're against Lapham attacking government? (You say he uses any excuse to do this. You attack government all the time, and even managed to do so while praising them. Neat trick, the bit about their usually being self-serving, and now not.) Why do you not realize that the essay here is about more than one particular event? How come you're in favor of someone reading the Gettysburg Address, which was written by a politician? Those who write have a "responsibility," I presume, to bring out the best in people and to help create a just and civilized society, right? In Aristotelean fashion? Why, then, does Lapham's saying pretty much the same thing so offend you? Because he's a liberal? I agree that he too often comes off as insufferable. You're sentiments, however, are very similar. You just come at things from different vantage points.
posted by raysmj at 11:01 AM on September 10, 2002
OK, being for "restraint" sounds very conservative. (Lapham's own editorial is in plenty of ways profoundly conservative.) But you're against politicians speaking eloquently? So how come you're against Lapham attacking government? (You say he uses any excuse to do this. You attack government all the time, and even managed to do so while praising them. Neat trick, the bit about their usually being self-serving, and now not.) Why do you not realize that the essay here is about more than one particular event? How come you're in favor of someone reading the Gettysburg Address, which was written by a politician? Those who write have a "responsibility," I presume, to bring out the best in people and to help create a just and civilized society, right? In Aristotelean fashion? Why, then, does Lapham's saying pretty much the same thing so offend you? Because he's a liberal? I agree that he too often comes off as insufferable. You're sentiments, however, are very similar. You just come at things from different vantage points.
posted by raysmj at 11:01 AM on September 10, 2002
"The boundaries of my language are the boundaries of my world."
Ludwig Wittgenstein
When that boundary is crossed, what then?
Wittegenstein would tell you that anything outside of language is of no importance to philosophy. Of course, he considered a great deal of what can be expressed by language to be of no philosophical meaning as well. The Vienna Circle was pretty hardcore about redefining the arena of philosophical discourse. This quote was to that purpose and is slightly out of context in the realm of this thread.
posted by Fezboy! at 12:17 PM on September 10, 2002
Ludwig Wittgenstein
When that boundary is crossed, what then?
Wittegenstein would tell you that anything outside of language is of no importance to philosophy. Of course, he considered a great deal of what can be expressed by language to be of no philosophical meaning as well. The Vienna Circle was pretty hardcore about redefining the arena of philosophical discourse. This quote was to that purpose and is slightly out of context in the realm of this thread.
posted by Fezboy! at 12:17 PM on September 10, 2002
Oh, crap. "Your're" rather than "your," twice. Ouch! Sorry.
posted by raysmj at 12:36 PM on September 10, 2002
posted by raysmj at 12:36 PM on September 10, 2002
"I do have a problem, however, with people who try to be elitist and populist simultaneously."
you have a problem with Jefferson? he invented it. slippers in the WH all the while sipping the best vino around. Oh, not to mention mary lincolns spending habits and fancy friends. But your right, i think it tones down ones elitist tendencies. The real question is, do you dislike elitist. (hey good enough for burroughs, good enough for me)
This quote was to that purpose and is slightly out of context in the realm of this thread. i think your right, I'll up the anty by saying: "Hitler and wittgenstien went to the same Realshule" (sic sp) that one blows my socks off. most words have no direct philiosophical meaning...bah...wait...he is right. good point fezboy, nice tie in. (no sarcasm)
How come you're in favor of someone reading the Gettysburg Address, which was written by a politician
pardon me Midas. I prefer it because Lincoln said that words cant capture this (gettysburg) and he felt that the words spoken that day would be forgotten. he just wanted to make sure both the south and north do not forget.
posted by clavdivs at 1:57 PM on September 10, 2002
you have a problem with Jefferson? he invented it. slippers in the WH all the while sipping the best vino around. Oh, not to mention mary lincolns spending habits and fancy friends. But your right, i think it tones down ones elitist tendencies. The real question is, do you dislike elitist. (hey good enough for burroughs, good enough for me)
This quote was to that purpose and is slightly out of context in the realm of this thread. i think your right, I'll up the anty by saying: "Hitler and wittgenstien went to the same Realshule" (sic sp) that one blows my socks off. most words have no direct philiosophical meaning...bah...wait...he is right. good point fezboy, nice tie in. (no sarcasm)
How come you're in favor of someone reading the Gettysburg Address, which was written by a politician
pardon me Midas. I prefer it because Lincoln said that words cant capture this (gettysburg) and he felt that the words spoken that day would be forgotten. he just wanted to make sure both the south and north do not forget.
posted by clavdivs at 1:57 PM on September 10, 2002
If nobody wants to give an original speech tomorrow, maybe instead we can print out a ton of blog entries from September 11, 2001 and post them up all over the city.
I'm serious.
That's not a bad idea. The other day I wandered into mefi's archives and looked up the 9/11 front page. this post and comments hit pretty hard. In one way it ruined my day, but in another way I felt oddly better. We are dealing with tragedy not only as individuals, but as a culture. We all are mourning different things in different ways - and generating alot of white noise in the process. But really tragedy is tragic because there is no proper way to mourn. There is nothing more we can say. I'm sorry if i derailed.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:59 PM on September 10, 2002
I'm serious.
That's not a bad idea. The other day I wandered into mefi's archives and looked up the 9/11 front page. this post and comments hit pretty hard. In one way it ruined my day, but in another way I felt oddly better. We are dealing with tragedy not only as individuals, but as a culture. We all are mourning different things in different ways - and generating alot of white noise in the process. But really tragedy is tragic because there is no proper way to mourn. There is nothing more we can say. I'm sorry if i derailed.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:59 PM on September 10, 2002
well, phil of orleans, 'mr. equality' from the french revolution invented created the elite/populist stance.
posted by clavdivs at 2:03 PM on September 10, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 2:03 PM on September 10, 2002
For some strange reason I cannot begin to fathom, this is provoking people to critisize the event organizers, and now even to remind people that this event really is small in comparison to other much bigger events of human pain. The viscious, mean-spirited intentions behind such sentiments are just inconceivable to me.
Well, try. Try to conceive of them. Pretend that everything indirectly related to September 11th isn't beyond human conception. The point is not that the event is irrelevant, but that there have been and are currently things of much more grave concern and that we don't pretend they are somehow transcendent of any understanding. You say you're happy to hear a greatest-hits lineup of famous American speeches that have nothing to do with the event itself. I say that's not good enough, and that we need to stop tiptoeing around pretending that our emotions are the untranslatable voice of God. It would be ok if we indulged in this melodrama one day a year--it is the anniversary, after all--but we've been doing it every day since September 11th.
What we have planned for tomorrow is simply the apotheosis of all the network televised tributes we've seen all year. That gets us nowhere. What I'd like to see tomorrow is for the nation as a whole to lift the ridiculous mourning veil and after the 365-day crying fit, finally begin to move on as adults do after a loss. I guess I'd hoped that tomorrow would be a cathartic moment. I don't want another year of this. Doesn't sound like it will be.
posted by Hildago at 2:08 PM on September 10, 2002
Well, try. Try to conceive of them. Pretend that everything indirectly related to September 11th isn't beyond human conception. The point is not that the event is irrelevant, but that there have been and are currently things of much more grave concern and that we don't pretend they are somehow transcendent of any understanding. You say you're happy to hear a greatest-hits lineup of famous American speeches that have nothing to do with the event itself. I say that's not good enough, and that we need to stop tiptoeing around pretending that our emotions are the untranslatable voice of God. It would be ok if we indulged in this melodrama one day a year--it is the anniversary, after all--but we've been doing it every day since September 11th.
What we have planned for tomorrow is simply the apotheosis of all the network televised tributes we've seen all year. That gets us nowhere. What I'd like to see tomorrow is for the nation as a whole to lift the ridiculous mourning veil and after the 365-day crying fit, finally begin to move on as adults do after a loss. I guess I'd hoped that tomorrow would be a cathartic moment. I don't want another year of this. Doesn't sound like it will be.
posted by Hildago at 2:08 PM on September 10, 2002
." But really tragedy is tragic because there is no proper way to mourn. There is nothing more we can say. I'm sorry if i derailed."
alot of wisdom in this post. i see no derailment.
"But as a culture"
well said.
"I say that's not good enough, and that we need to stop tiptoeing around pretending that our emotions are the untranslatable voice of God."
Bingo, i felt this way about the firefighters lingering at the site. I understand the vigilence and loyalty but when a few of those firefighters struck a few NYC cops it was time for them to go home and mourn while the people do their work, cleaning up and going on with life.
posted by clavdivs at 3:34 PM on September 10, 2002
alot of wisdom in this post. i see no derailment.
"But as a culture"
well said.
"I say that's not good enough, and that we need to stop tiptoeing around pretending that our emotions are the untranslatable voice of God."
Bingo, i felt this way about the firefighters lingering at the site. I understand the vigilence and loyalty but when a few of those firefighters struck a few NYC cops it was time for them to go home and mourn while the people do their work, cleaning up and going on with life.
posted by clavdivs at 3:34 PM on September 10, 2002
clavdivs: Nice point. Most "populist" leaders have been well-educated, all that, and think they have some special wisdom. I've just been reading a bit about "Big" Jim Folsom of Alabama, the prototype of the southern populist, and he had a "knows best" thing going on about civil rights and the South's future. (Turns out he was right, dead-on right, just that he didn't know how to convince people. He started drinking even more as he realized this, but still kept running for office, making a sad spectacle of himself.) Al Gore tried the pose in 2000, and was most assuredly elitist and populist. Bush tries it all the time, but more through image and style of language (he can't help but sound non-elitist most of the time) than specific words.
On the whole, I think the best politicians slip on a populist hat, then slip on the elitist hat. It's hard to pull off, though, especially when you've played up your credentials as an elite again and again here. It seems even more obvious when you've previously talked in the language of the early 19th Century's landed gentry.
So, what to do? If you want to keep going in this new populist vein, you have to come up with some earthy connection to the Great Unwashed or beloved masses, what have you. Al could at least point to dad and working on a farm. (I know, whatever. But worked for him politically - going populist was the only time he clicked with a majority of the polled.) Jefferson could play up his love of the rural life. Bush grew up in rugged west Texas. Populism is harder for, say, William F. Buckley to pull off for said reasons, even if he's written about Elvis in TV Guide. On the other hand, maybe being on TV for years, and being something of an entertainer/ham earned him cred here. Who's a better example? Martha Stewart? Louis Rukeyser? The Hilton sisters? (Do they even talk?) George the Elder (and his pork rinds)? Any Kennedy?
posted by raysmj at 5:54 PM on September 10, 2002
On the whole, I think the best politicians slip on a populist hat, then slip on the elitist hat. It's hard to pull off, though, especially when you've played up your credentials as an elite again and again here. It seems even more obvious when you've previously talked in the language of the early 19th Century's landed gentry.
So, what to do? If you want to keep going in this new populist vein, you have to come up with some earthy connection to the Great Unwashed or beloved masses, what have you. Al could at least point to dad and working on a farm. (I know, whatever. But worked for him politically - going populist was the only time he clicked with a majority of the polled.) Jefferson could play up his love of the rural life. Bush grew up in rugged west Texas. Populism is harder for, say, William F. Buckley to pull off for said reasons, even if he's written about Elvis in TV Guide. On the other hand, maybe being on TV for years, and being something of an entertainer/ham earned him cred here. Who's a better example? Martha Stewart? Louis Rukeyser? The Hilton sisters? (Do they even talk?) George the Elder (and his pork rinds)? Any Kennedy?
posted by raysmj at 5:54 PM on September 10, 2002
the hilton sisters-thats good. oh and even huey long.
i would say andy jackson hits your mark. for a great general, he hated a professional army. carter did ok with it and gore could pull it off.
posted by clavdivs at 7:18 PM on September 10, 2002
i would say andy jackson hits your mark. for a great general, he hated a professional army. carter did ok with it and gore could pull it off.
posted by clavdivs at 7:18 PM on September 10, 2002
« Older U.S. Stops Iraq-Al Qaeda Talk | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:24 AM on September 10, 2002